From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39596 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755454Ab0CDLSj (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Mar 2010 06:18:39 -0500 Message-ID: <4B8F974A.4090001@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2010 12:19:38 +0100 From: Hans de Goede MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Erik_Andr=E9n?= CC: LKML , Jean-Francois Moine , Linux Media Mailing List , Gabriel C Subject: Re: Gspca USB driver zc3xx and STV06xx probe the same device .. References: <1820d69d1003030445n18b35839r407d4d277b1bf48d@mail.gmail.com> <62e5edd41003030517g6fa9b64awdf18578d6c5db7e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <62e5edd41003030517g6fa9b64awdf18578d6c5db7e@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-media-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On 03/03/2010 02:17 PM, Erik Andrén wrote: > 2010/3/3 Gabriel C: >> Hello, >> >> I own a QuickCam Messanger webcam.. I didn't used it in ages but today >> I plugged it in.. >> ( Device 002: ID 046d:08da Logitech, Inc. QuickCam Messanger ) >> >> Now zc3xx and stv06xx are starting both to probe the device .. In >> 2.6.33 that result in a not working webcam. >> ( rmmod both&& modprobe zc3xx one seems to fix that ) >> >> On current git head zc3xx works fine even when both are probing the device. >> >> Also I noticed stv06xx fails anyway for my webcam with this error: >> .... >> >> [ 360.910243] STV06xx: Configuring camera >> [ 360.910244] STV06xx: st6422 sensor detected >> [ 360.910245] STV06xx: Initializing camera >> [ 361.161948] STV06xx: probe of 6-1:1.0 failed with error -32 >> [ 361.161976] usbcore: registered new interface driver STV06xx >> [ 361.161978] STV06xx: registered >> ..... >> >> Next thing is stv06xx tells it is an st6422 sensor and does not work >> with it while zc3xx tells it is an HV7131R(c) sensor and works fine >> with it. >> >> What is right ? > > Hans, > As you added support for the st6422 sensor to the stv06xx subdriver I > imagine you best know what's going on. > I took the USB-ID in question from the out of tree v4l1 driver I was basing my st6422 work on. Looking at the other ID's (which are very close together) and combining that with this bug report, I think it is safe to say that the USB-ID in question should be removed from the stv06xx driver. Erik will you handle this, or shall I ? Regards, Hans