Re: file2alias - incorrect? aliases for USB

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sun, Nov 09, 2003 at 09:55:19PM +0300, Andrey Borzenkov wrote:
> file2aliases puts in alias device ID high and low numbers directly from match 
> specifications. E.g. for this match table entry:
> 
> usb-storage          0x000f      0x04e6   0x0006    0x0100       0x0205 ...
> 
> it generates alias
> 
> alias usb:v04E6p0006dl0100dh0205dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* usb_storage
> 
> unfortunately real device attribute does not include high and low - rather it 
> has single device ID (as part of PRODUCT) that should be contained in these 
> bounds:
> 
>         length += snprintf (scratch, buffer_size - length, "PRODUCT=%x/%x/%x",
>                             usb_dev->descriptor.idVendor,
>                             usb_dev->descriptor.idProduct,
>                             usb_dev->descriptor.bcdDevice);
> 
> or bcdDevice file in sysfs.
> 
> This makes those aliases rather useless for the purpose of matching reported 
> device. It may take the same route as PCI and reject all device ID table 
> entries that have High != Low but there are quite a few of them available.
> 
> I am rather confused because I do not see how this condition (low <= bcdDevice 
> <= high) can be expressed using simple glob pattern (unless we are going to 
> take glob library from Zsh :)

I would suggest just ignoring the bcdDevice value, and loading all
modules that match the idVendor and idProduct values, and let the kernel
sort it out :)

So for your example, you would just:
	modprobe usb:v04E6p0006dl*dh*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip* 

Hm, but that's no good either, because the visor driver trips over that
with its entry:
	MODULE_ALIAS("usb:v*p*dl*dh*dc*dsc*dp*ic*isc*ip*");
and the improper module is loaded.  That needs to be fixed up...

Rusty, any reason why the module alias code is turning an empty
MODULE_PARAM structure, as is declared in drivers/usb/serial/visor.c
with the line:
        { },                                    /* optional parameter entry */ 

Into the above MODULE_ALIAS?  I don't think that's correct.

thanks,

greg k-h