77-mm-usb-device-blacklist.rules - allow blacklisting various devices

[Dan Williams]

On Sat, 2014-09-06 at 21:06 +0200, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 8:40 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-09-05 at 09:58 +0200, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> >> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:45 AM, poma <pomidorabelisima at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Probably now you can fully understand why I proposed
> >> > +# Conexant Systems (Rockwell), Inc. USB Modem (TRENDnet TFM-561U 56K USB Modem)
> >> > +ATTRS{idVendor}=="0572", ATTRS{idProduct}=="1329", ENV{ID_MM_DEVICE_IGNORE}="1"
> >>
> >> Yeah; but I would keep those in a separate list, in case we end up
> >> working in the POTS modems some day.
> >>
> >> Dan what do you think?
> >
> > If we do start blacklisting POTS modems, then we've got the problem of
> > what happens when somebody with POTS modems upgrades to a version of MM
> > that actually supports them.  We have three choices I think:
> >
> > 1) blacklist POTS modems now, and make POTS support opt-in via some kind
> > of configuration when we support it; we could encourage distros to put
> > the blacklist in a separate package that could be un-installed to get
> > POTS support.  I think this is probably the best option for now, it
> > makes sure that upgrades don't radically change how things work.
> >
> > 2) blacklist POTS modems now, and don't care about the upgrade issue in
> > the future; easiest thing to do but  not the nicest move if we ever get
> > POTS support
> >
> > 3) do as now and still probe POTS modems; this doesn't seem quite right
> > because we don't pretend to support POTS now
> >
> > So TLDR; I think option #1 is the best for now.  Other thoughts?
> 
> 
> How about using another tag for POTS devices, not the default IGNORE
> one? We could have a ID_MM_POTS or something. If we don't have POTS
> support, modems with that tag would be ignored, and once we have
> support for them, we could directly re-use the tag to start supporting
> them.

That's a good idea.

Dan