[Nut-upsdev] [PATCH] few additions to the nut-usbups.rules

[Arnaud Quette]

Hi Stan,

2011/11/2 Charles Lepple <clepple at gmail.com>

> On Nov 2, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Stanislav Brabec wrote:
>
>  -       {            0x0001, 0x0000,  &krauler_subdriver },     /*
>> Krauler UP-M500VA */
>> -       {            0xffff, 0x0000,  &krauler_subdriver },     /*
>> Ablerex 625L USB */
>> +       { USB_DEVICE(0x0001, 0x0000), &krauler_subdriver },     /*
>> Krauler UP-M500VA */
>> +       { USB_DEVICE(0xffff, 0x0000), &krauler_subdriver },     /*
>> Ablerex 625L USB */
>>
>
> Thanks for the patch!
>
>
> IMHO, we only want NUT to claim these invalid USB IDs if the user
> specifically requests it, rather than including it in the base NUT
> distribution (think Gstreamer's "ugly" vs "good" plugins.)
>
> Arnaud, do you think it is worthwhile to split this off into a second
> udev/hotplug configuration file? (I ask since I think either you or someone
> else at Eaton wrote the script that generates the .rules.in file).
>

well, sitting down to think for a minute, my original intention was just to
not conflict with other "system" devices (I had in mind "Linux Foundation
root hub").
Digging back memories and the net, the only evidence I can find of possible
conflict is ffff:0000 with some HID mice. Nothing for 0001:0000.

So while it's true that these USB IDs are not conforming to USB standard, I
don't actually see any need to keep these out of NUT udev rules anymore.

Apart if someone prove me I'm wrong, I'm intending to revert r2994 and
r2993 within a few days.
Thanks for pointing my attention to this Stan!

cheers,
Arnaud
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsdev/attachments/20111112/cf9334f4/attachment.html>