Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 152191
USB profile 093a:010e device
Last modified: 2007-11-30 17:11:02 EST
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.
bDeviceClass 255 Vendor Specific Class
bDeviceSubClass 255 Vendor Specific Subclass
bDeviceProtocol 255 Vendor Specific Protocol
idVendor 0x093a Pixart Imaging, Inc.
iProduct 2 Dual-Mode Digital Camera
What is the problem with this device?
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.
What does 'lsusb -v' report on this device?
The 'lsusb -v' output is in comment # 1 already -- as noted "This is the USB
header information, with detail on the '0x010e' Product ID".
What are you asking beyond that information?
ping -- still not answered -- requested info in the ticket -- what else do you
need from me?
the issue is the gphoto2 knows it but usbutils, against which it is filed, does
not have the profile, and needs it added
usbutils is using the database of hwdata.
Assigning to hwdata.
This needs to be added at the upstream repository at
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
added to 'My Devices'
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.
"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?
Moving to 'devel' as discussed on
it has appeared -- thanks
I still think the sigs acquisition process is messed up in that it took two
years, but whatever ...