Bug 152191

Summary: USB profile 093a:010e device
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: R P Herrold <herrold>
Component: hwdataAssignee: Karsten Hopp <karsten>
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhide   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: rawhide Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-03-29 15:40:24 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description R P Herrold 2005-03-25 21:15:08 UTC
This is the USB header information, with detail on the '0x010e' Product ID

It is a 'Gemini' Keychain Digital Camera -- the latest Fedora Gphoto2 picks it up.

Bus 001 Device 002: ID 093a:010e Pixart Imaging, Inc.
Device Descriptor:
  bLength                18
  bDescriptorType         1
  bcdUSB               1.10
  bDeviceClass          255 Vendor Specific Class
  bDeviceSubClass       255 Vendor Specific Subclass
  bDeviceProtocol       255 Vendor Specific Protocol
  bMaxPacketSize0         8
  idVendor           0x093a Pixart Imaging, Inc.
  idProduct          0x010e
  bcdDevice            1.00
  iManufacturer           0
  iProduct                2 Dual-Mode Digital Camera
  iSerial                 0
  bNumConfigurations      1

Comment 1 Thomas Woerner 2005-11-17 12:53:51 UTC
What is the problem with this device?

Comment 2 R P Herrold 2006-07-15 02:46:08 UTC
the problem is that application space gphoto2 knows the USB ID [assumedly from a
local profile database], but system level usbutils does not because the profile
is not is its database, and needs to be added to usbutils.

Comment 3 R P Herrold 2006-07-15 02:46:19 UTC
the problem is that application space gphoto2 knows the USB ID [assumedly from a
local profile database], but system level usbutils does not because the profile
is not is its database, and needs to be added to usbutils.

Comment 4 Thomas Woerner 2006-07-15 13:03:47 UTC
What does 'lsusb -v' report on this device?

Comment 5 R P Herrold 2006-07-17 15:35:18 UTC
The 'lsusb -v' output is in comment # 1 already -- as noted "This is the USB
header information, with detail on the '0x010e' Product ID".

...
  idProduct          0x010e
...

What are you asking beyond that information?

Comment 6 R P Herrold 2007-01-08 23:09:24 UTC
ping -- still not answered -- requested info in the ticket -- what else do you
need from me?

Comment 7 R P Herrold 2007-01-08 23:10:52 UTC
the issue is the gphoto2 knows it but usbutils, against which it is filed, does
not have the profile, and needs it added

Comment 8 Thomas Woerner 2007-01-09 12:12:48 UTC
usbutils is using the database of hwdata.

Assigning to hwdata.

Comment 9 Karsten Hopp 2007-01-09 13:21:45 UTC
This needs to be added at the upstream repository at
http://www.qbik.ch/usb/devices/ 
That's where we get our usb data from and each new entry needs to be submitted
and reviewed there. Please create an account there, log in and click at 'Manage
my devices' on the left side to add new entries.

Change this bugzilla's status back to 'ASSIGNED' when you're done and I'll get the
new usb.ids file

Comment 10 R P Herrold 2007-01-09 15:29:27 UTC
added to 'My Devices'

Comment 11 Karsten Hopp 2007-01-25 12:07:38 UTC
I hope it'll get picked up automatically when a new usb list is being created.
At least it looks like upstream doesn't release new usb.ids files that often,
the last one ist still from 2006/12/12. That's what currently is in FC-7 hwdata.

Comment 12 R P Herrold 2007-02-25 23:26:02 UTC
"I hope" ???

I guess what you are saying is that the process of using an upstream archive to
capture fixes is broken.

There is not one iota more information now, than there was when I opened this
bug: 2005-03-25 No-one upstream is interested.  Shall it be fixed in Fedora, or
does it make no sense to file bugs here?

Comment 13 Bill Nottingham 2007-03-02 17:29:21 UTC
Moving to 'devel' as discussed on
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-March/msg00095.html.

Comment 14 R P Herrold 2007-03-29 15:40:24 UTC
it has appeared -- thanks

I still think the sigs acquisition process is messed up in that it took two
years, but whatever ...