From: "Sam Liddicott" <sam@liddicott.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
Cc: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@gmail.com>,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>,
Linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux USB list <linux-usb@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: "permanently" unbind a device from a driver?
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:20:45 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4977596D.409@liddicott.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20090121162345.GB22615@kroah.com
* Greg KH wrote, On 21/01/09 16:23:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 11:44:03PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/21 Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>:
>>
>>> Just add a blacklist rule to the usbhid driver for this device. There
>>> are a number of devices out there that need this functionality, which is
>>> why there is such a list.
>>>
>> Is it possible to implement a generic blacklist mechanism in driver core
>> to support the function for all kinds of drivers? or is it necessary to do that?
>>
>
> It's not necessary as the hid core already supports this very thing due
> to the need for it (it's the easiest way to write a userspace Windows
> driver, so lots of manufacturers lie about their devices in order to
> work around having to write a Windows kernel driver.)
>
> So just add this device to the hid core blacklist, and you are all set.
>
> Care to send a patch?
>
I've often felt that a /proc or /sys interface to allow blacklist
additions or quirk addition would be great.
Hacking of new devices often runs faster than distro's kernel releases;
it will often be very simple to distribute a 1 liner to make some
hardware available than tell people to wait until the next major release
of their distro.
As a point in instance, a couple of years ago I gave up trying to get
some quirks added for usb dual and quad joystick adaptors. I got them
added for one of them but not the other. It was just too much hard work.
I will say for the record that you, Greg, were very helpful, but all
told it was a couple of hours to build and test each quirk patch (I
didn't get the controllers at the same time), and then knowing that I
would either have to maintain my own out-of-distro kernel or wait about
18 months for my distro to get the patch - meant that the work was not
solving any immediate problem; so the pay-off in relation to the
scarcity of my time meant it just got forgotten.
An user-space post-boot uploadable quirk/blacklist would be great and
IMHO result in a bigger supply of quirks.
Sam
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-21 17:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-20 20:50 "permanently" unbind a device from a driver? Michael Tokarev
2009-01-20 21:02 ` Greg KH
2009-01-21 15:44 ` Ming Lei
2009-01-21 16:23 ` Greg KH
2009-01-21 17:20 ` Sam Liddicott [this message]
2009-01-21 18:11 ` Greg KH
2009-01-21 21:24 ` Michael Tokarev
2009-01-28 6:19 ` Greg KH
2009-01-29 9:43 ` Jiri Kosina
2009-01-22 2:31 ` Ming Lei
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4977596D.409@liddicott.com \
--to=sam@liddicott.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-usb@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mjt@tls.msk.ru \
--cc=tom.leiming@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox