Re: [Ftdi-usb-sio-devel] Non-standard Product ID (PID)

[Bill R. <br...@pa...>]

Hi John,

Can you send me the VID you got for that device?

I see the PID (0xfe38) but not a VID.

I might as well add it to the list.

And is it a BM or an AM?

I'm finally actually doing work on the driver (including your xon/xoff 
code for example).


John Wilkins wrote:

>Hi,
>For a couple of months now I've been using an ftdi based serial-to-usb
>device supplied by my ISP.  Needless to say the ISP doesnt "support"
>linux but with a bit of moderate hacking I've got the ftdi driver to
>work quite well.
>
>However, the ftdi-based convertor exhibits a different Product ID (PID)
>to the ones suggested in the .h file (it reports 0xfe38 instead of
>0x6001).  So when the device is plugged in, or the module insmod'ed the
>device is not recognised by the driver.
>
>I've got around this by adding the PID to the .h file and added a new
>entry to the usb_device_id tables at the top of the .c file.  This works
>well and now the device is recognised by the driver.  However, I want
>to get away from having to patch the ftdi driver if possible - 
>especially as the rest of the operation uses the 8U232AM code exactly
>(that's what the convertor is based on).
>
>My question is, should I ask for the PID/VID codes for this device to
>be added to the maintained sources or is there a way to "alias" the 
>VID/PID so that my device's codes get "translated" to the standard ones
>defined in the .h?
>
>Hope that makes sense!
>
>john
>
>
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
>Welcome to geek heaven.
>http://thinkgeek.com/sf
>_______________________________________________
>Ftdi-usb-sio-devel mailing list
>Ftd...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ftdi-usb-sio-devel
>
>
>  
>