On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 03:51:22PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, Matthew Dharm wrote: > > > On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 05:12:29PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > > IMO this indicates we shouldn't issue any clear-halts at all unless the > > > device actually needs it. In general it's not a good idea to do a > > > clear-halt for an endpoint that isn't actually halted; devices are > > > prone to misinterpret the request. > > > > > > And since the only device we know of that does need the clear-halts is > > > long obsolete, the simplest strategy is just to leave them out. That > > > ancient ZIP-100 drive can be accomodated by adding a US_FL_SINGLE_LUN > > > flag for it, since the Get-Max-LUN is never issued when that flag is > > > set. > > > > My only issue is that we're effectively dropping support for a device that > > currently works. An obsolete device, I admit, but a device we currently > > support nevertheless. > > > > I suppose that really is the best option, tho. We just need to be on the > > lookout for reports of very old ZIP-100 drives breaking. > > I found the original thread where we diagnosed the problem with the old > ZIP-100. This message is near the end of the thread, but it includes > the descriptor values for the device: > > https://lists.one-eyed-alien.net/pipermail/usb-storage/2004-March/000051.html > > Interestingly, the bcdUSB value is 0x0100 -- USB 1.0 rather than 1.1. > Maybe we should automatically set the SINGLE_LUN flag for any device > with that value? Or would we be better off with an explicit > unusual_devs entry for this ZIP-100 model?
We should have as narrow a scope of influence as possible. A single entry
would be best.
Matt
--
Matthew Dharm Home: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
Why am I talking to a toilet brush?
-- CEO
User Friendly, 4/30/1998
pgpLQIsveifdm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
