From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Felix Schwarz Date: Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:58:44 +0000 Subject: Retire modem-modeswitch for non-option devices? Message-Id: <4B43B614.7070203@oss.schwarz.eu> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-hotplug@vger.kernel.org Hi, I'm trying to add support for my UMTS USB stick (Huawei 3765) to udev. Until yesterday I was pretty sure that I need to patch modem-modeswitch + adding some udev rules. However today I found changeset 8a993fab2f218234f06743bcc127dda61a45711b by Dan Williams committed on Nov 23 which basically says that it is completely wrong to use 'option-zerocd' for non-option devices. Dan send a reasoning before doing his revert: http://www.spinics.net/lists/hotplug/msg03143.html More specifically he wrote: "All further modem eject stuff should really handled by usb_modeswitch, not by modem-modeswitch. I'll follow up with a patch for the rules file saying that only Option devices should be added, and that usb_modeswitch is really the right place for this stuff." I'm puzzled by that... 1. Does that mean that you (udev upstream) declare modem-modeswitch a dead end and everybody should look at usb_modeswitch? 2. If a supposedly wrong string works on real hardware for real users - how can it be wrong? You might want to argue that a parameter 'option-zerocd' is wrong for non-option devices and we should use a different name for the parameter... 3. If usb_modeswitch is the way to go, are you comfortable adding this as a dependency (by including rules which call usb_modeswitch)? fs PS: cc'ing Dan as he's not on the list afaik, cc'ing Martin because he commited the original commit and is in charge for the original Ubuntu bug.