From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from charlotte.tuxdriver.com ([70.61.120.58]:58871 "EHLO smtp.tuxdriver.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752973Ab0ECQAN (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 12:00:13 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 11:47:46 -0400 From: "John W. Linville" To: "rain_maker@root-forum.org" Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] rt2x00: remove USB-ID 148f:2573 from rt2500usb driver Message-ID: <20100503154745.GB24781@tuxdriver.com> References: <201005031624.45409.rain_maker@root-forum.org> <20100503145815.GA24781@tuxdriver.com> <201005031720.36288.rain_maker@root-forum.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <201005031720.36288.rain_maker@root-forum.org> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 05:20:36PM +0200, rain_maker@root-forum.org wrote: > Am Monday 03 May 2010 16:58:16 schrieben Sie: > > 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... > But of course the problem in such cases is, you can't prove it, you can only > add more and more examples for "not being wrong" while finding one example > where actually a device with 148f:2573 working with rt2500usb und not working > with rt73usb would prove me wrong once and for all. http://osdir.com/ml/linux-wireless/2009-07/msg00267.html This seems to be such an example? John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@tuxdriver.com might be all we have. Be ready.