On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 12:50:27PM +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
Il giorno mer 9 lug 2025 alle ore 12:08 Johan Hovold johan@kernel.org ha scritto:
On Tue, Jul 08, 2025 at 02:00:04PM +0200, Fabio Porcedda wrote:
Add Telit Cinterion FE910C04 (ECM) composition: 0x10c7: ECM + tty (AT) + tty (AT) + tty (diag)
/* Interface does not support modem-control requests */ #define NCTRL(ifnum) ((BIT(ifnum) & 0xff) << 8) +#define NCTRL_ALL (0xff << 8)
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(TELIT_VENDOR_ID, 0x10c7, 0xff, 0xff, 0x30), /* Telit FE910C04 (ECM) */.driver_info = NCTRL_ALL },Please just use NCTRL(4) here. (And remember to mention additions like this in the commit message in the future.)
Ok, I will send a v2.
Or do you have reasons to believe the interface numbering may change? Or is it just to avoid matching on both number and protocol?
The interface number should not change, it's just to have a more generic definition that matches also other pids for the same soc. I think it's easier to write and less error prone because the interface number changes based on the PID.
Yeah, I can see it having some merit. Maybe I reacted to the naming as I at first incorrectly read it as no interface supporting the control request (perhaps naming it "NCTRL_ANY" would have avoided this).
But for consistency I think we can continue using the interface numbers until we have some better abstraction for these that can be used to avoid also the explicit per protocol entries.
Johan