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)
usb-devices output: T: Bus=01 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#= 7 Spd=480 MxCh= 0 D: Ver= 2.00 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS=64 #Cfgs= 1 P: Vendor=1bc7 ProdID=10c7 Rev=05.15 S: Manufacturer=Telit Cinterion S: Product=FE910 S: SerialNumber=f71b8b32 C: #Ifs= 5 Cfg#= 1 Atr=e0 MxPwr=500mA I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 1 Cls=02(commc) Sub=06 Prot=00 Driver=cdc_ether E: Ad=82(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 16 Ivl=32ms I: If#= 1 Alt= 1 #EPs= 2 Cls=0a(data ) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=cdc_ether E: Ad=01(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=81(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms I: If#= 2 Alt= 0 #EPs= 3 Cls=ff(vend.) Sub=ff Prot=40 Driver=option E: Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=83(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=84(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 10 Ivl=32ms I: If#= 3 Alt= 0 #EPs= 3 Cls=ff(vend.) Sub=ff Prot=40 Driver=option E: Ad=03(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=85(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=86(I) Atr=03(Int.) MxPS= 10 Ivl=32ms I: If#= 4 Alt= 0 #EPs= 2 Cls=ff(vend.) Sub=ff Prot=30 Driver=option E: Ad=04(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=87(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms
/* Interface does not support modem-control requests */ #define NCTRL(ifnum) ((BIT(ifnum) & 0xff) << 8) +#define NCTRL_ALL (0xff << 8)
/* Interface is reserved */ #define RSVD(ifnum) ((BIT(ifnum) & 0xff) << 0) @@ -1415,6 +1416,9 @@ static const struct usb_device_id option_ids[] = { .driver_info = NCTRL(5) }, { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(TELIT_VENDOR_ID, 0x10d0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x40) }, { USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(TELIT_VENDOR_ID, 0x10d0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x60) },
{ 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.
Perhaps we should try to generalise these rules at some point in case there is some logic to it these days (e.g. 0x30 => diag and NCTRL)...
At least for this SoC it's just like that (0x30 => diag and NCTRL) and all interfaces with 0x40 and 0x60. My modification was an attempt to go in that direction. But It's not a rule so Qualcomm may change that for a new PID or new SoC.
{ USB_DEVICE_AND_INTERFACE_INFO(TELIT_VENDOR_ID, 0x10c7, 0xff, 0xff, 0x40) },Johan
Best regards
-- Fabio Porcedda