Re: [PATCH] p54usb: Remove duplicate Medion MD40900 device id

[Ben Collins <benmcollins13@gmail.com>]

On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 14:55 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 06:23:19PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> > On 06/10/2010 05:28 PM, Leann Ogasawara wrote:
> > > The Medion MD40900 device id [0x0cde, 0x0006] is defined twice.  Remove
> > > the duplicate.
> > > 
> > > Originally-by: Ben Collins <ben.collins@ubuntu.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Leann Ogasawara <leann.ogasawara@canonical.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c |    1 -
> > >  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c b/drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c
> > > index 7307325..d6d8713 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/p54/p54usb.c
> > > @@ -69,7 +69,6 @@ static struct usb_device_id p54u_table[] __devinitdata = {
> > >  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0915, 0x2002)},	/* Cohiba Proto board */
> > >  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0baf, 0x0118)},   /* U.S. Robotics U5 802.11g Adapter*/
> > >  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0bf8, 0x1009)},   /* FUJITSU E-5400 USB D1700*/
> > > -	{USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0006)},   /* Medion MD40900 */
> > >  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0008)},	/* Sagem XG703A */
> > >  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0cde, 0x0015)},	/* Zcomax XG-705A */
> > >  	{USB_DEVICE(0x0d8e, 0x3762)},	/* DLink DWL-G120 Cohiba */
> > 
> > Do you know for certain that this device is a Version 1 chip, and for
> > that reason, you are removing it from the version 2 list?
> > 
> > If not, NACK.
> 
> So, I guess you are concerned about the groupings because of the
> different firmwares or something like that?  Perhaps a comment that
> says "this could be a version 2 device" is just as handy?  Since the
> driver prints the name of the firmware it wants, is there any real
> need for grouping the IDs?
> 
> OTOH, is there any actual harm from the duplicate entry?  It "seems"
> wrong to me too, but I guess it does no harm...?
> 
> Leann and/or Ben, was this just tidying-up?  I'm guessing there wasn't
> an actual bug involved?

It was flagged by a script I wrote to detect overlapping drivers. This
driver had dual entries for the same device, so the second was basically
giving depmod another entry to worry about. Trivial, yes, but just
seemed cleaner to not do that in general.

I think we had decided awhile back to just comment out this entry with a
note that says something like "already above, just listing for clarity"
or similar.

-- 
Bluecherry: http://www.bluecherrydvr.com/
SwissDisk : http://www.swissdisk.com/
Ubuntu    : http://www.ubuntu.com/
My Blog   : http://ben-collins.blogspot.com/