From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-lf1-f68.google.com ([209.85.167.68]:42085 "EHLO mail-lf1-f68.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727054AbeH2Lvu (ORCPT ); Wed, 29 Aug 2018 07:51:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018 09:56:10 +0200 From: Johan Hovold To: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Bj=F8rn?= Mork Cc: Johan Hovold , Romain Izard , Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-usb@vger.kernel.org, LKML , stable , Lars Melin Subject: Re: [PATCH] option: Do not try to bind to ADB interfaces Message-ID: <20180829075610.GE28861@localhost> References: <20180723140220.7166-1-romain.izard.pro@gmail.com> <20180723140801.GA4835@kroah.com> <20180827132815.GD14967@localhost> <87r2ijdbuv.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <87r2ijdbuv.fsf@miraculix.mork.no> Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 06:15:52PM +0200, Bj�rn Mork wrote: > Johan Hovold writes: > > > It would allow for simpler device-id entries, at least when ADB is the > > only blacklisted interface, and may enable ADB for some older entries. > > > > On the other hand, interface class 0xff is indeed supposed to be vendor > > specific as Lars and Greg pointed out, and with status quo we don't > > cause any regressions. If ADB isn't currently available for some device > > due to option binding to that interface, we'll just blacklist it as soon > > we get a report. > > > > So personally I'm not sure it's worth it, but I don't have a strong > > opinion on the matter either. > > +1 > > The adb userspace application is also free to unbind any conflicting > driver, so I don't think blacklisting is strictly necessary. Except to > prevent any confusion caused by bogus ttyUSBx devices. Right. Let's leave things as they are then. Thanks, Johan