On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 17:15 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
> Hello Dan,
>
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:47:59AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:22 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
> > > By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
> > > have a name conflict
Hello Dan,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 09:47:59AM -0600, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:22 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
> > By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
> > have a name conflicts in case two similar hso devices are connected.
> >
> > In this pat
On Fri, 2015-01-30 at 13:22 +0100, Olivier Sobrie wrote:
> By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
> have a name conflicts in case two similar hso devices are connected.
>
> In this patch, the name of the hso rfkill interface embed the value
> of a counter that is incr
By using only the usb interface number for the rfkill name, we might
have a name conflicts in case two similar hso devices are connected.
In this patch, the name of the hso rfkill interface embed the value
of a counter that is incremented each time a new rfkill interface is
added.
Suggested-by: D
