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

[poma]

On 15.09.2014 11:27, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 7:02 PM, Dan Williams <dcbw at redhat.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> 
> Poma, does the attached patch work for you?
> 


Not quite figured out the meaning of "memorabilia"? :)

-# Agere Systems, Inc. (Lucent) Systems Soft Modem
-ATTRS{idVendor}=="047e", ATTRS{idProduct}=="2892", ENV{ID_MM_POTS}="1"

+# Conexant Systems (Rockwell), Inc. USB Modem (TRENDnet TFM-561U 56K USB Modem)
+ATTRS{idVendor}=="0572", ATTRS{idProduct}=="1329", ENV{ID_MM_POTS}="1"


Agere/Lucent has never been properly supported.
Once upon a time, a proprietary 32 bit library blob was needed.

Therefore, the device file won't be created.


poma


p.s.
Some of these Agere/Lucent devices are still sold as Conexant.
Pay attention!