From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:44504 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759037Ab0ECPAL (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 11:00:11 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 10:58:16 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: "rain_maker@root-forum.org" Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Ivo van Doorn Subject: Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: remove USB-ID 148f:2573 from rt2500usb driver Message-ID: <20100503145815.GA24781@tuxdriver.com> References: <201005031624.45409.rain_maker@root-forum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <201005031624.45409.rain_maker@root-forum.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 04:24:45PM +0200, rain_maker@root-forum.org wrote: > The drivers rt2500usb and rt73usb both contain the usb id 148f:2573 while only > the latter is suitable for devices with that id. > > As a consequence, both drivers will be loaded and system log shows messages > like "rt2500usb_init_eeprom: Error - Invalid RT chipset detected". > > If you use the above search term, you will find more than 1500 hits with a > well known search engine, confirming that rt2500usb is always the wrong > driver for devices with usb id 148f:2573 and quite often as a side effect > confusion arose about this -non fatal but misleading- error message in the > respective bug reports or threads. I also get more than 100 hits from (probably the same) well-known search engine for "rt73usb_init_eeprom: Error - Invalid RT chipset detected". I'm sure those aren't all for the same USB ID, and perhaps none of them are. Then again, not all of the 1500+ that you cite are for the same USB ID either. So I'm curious, how can you be sure that 148f:2573 is _always_ wrong for rt2500usb? I do acknowledge that the "73" part makes it suspicious... John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.