[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2257 bytes --] I noticed that when I use "lsusb -v" on a UAS-enabled drive enclosure, the bInterfaceProtocol line for #80/0x50 has a "protocol name" label but the one for #98/0x62 does not: ======== # lsusb -v -s2:15 | grep Interface bDeviceClass 0 (Defined at Interface level) bNumInterfaces 1 Interface Descriptor: bInterfaceNumber 0 bInterfaceClass 8 Mass Storage bInterfaceSubClass 6 SCSI bInterfaceProtocol 80 Bulk-Only iInterface 0 Interface Descriptor: bInterfaceNumber 0 bInterfaceClass 8 Mass Storage bInterfaceSubClass 6 SCSI bInterfaceProtocol 98 iInterface 0 ======== So...I was wondering if there was any particular reason that protocol 98 isn't included in the usb.ids file? As a proof of concept I added the SCSI-subclass version of the line to the usb.ids file (see attached patch) and lsusb successfully showed a description for the #98 line as well: ======== # lsusb -v -s2:15 | grep Interface bDeviceClass 0 (Defined at Interface level) bNumInterfaces 1 Interface Descriptor: bInterfaceNumber 0 bInterfaceClass 8 Mass Storage bInterfaceSubClass 6 SCSI bInterfaceProtocol 80 Bulk-Only iInterface 0 Interface Descriptor: bInterfaceNumber 0 bInterfaceClass 8 Mass Storage bInterfaceSubClass 6 SCSI bInterfaceProtocol 98 UAS iInterface 0 ======== (This experiment was on an Ubuntu Bionic system.) I searched the list archives (and web in general) for previous discussion on this topic, but didn't succeed in finding this specific issue. (I see that 62 is in fact included in the protocol list found on https://usb-ids.gowdy.us/read/UC/08/06 , but it has an empty "name" column in that table -- and it's missing completely from the current file at https://usb-ids.gowdy.us/usb.ids .) Thanks. Nathan p.s. If in fact it makes sense to add UAS to the file: I assume the UAS protocol doesn't apply to the UFI subclass, but I don't know off hand if it applies to the RBC subclass as well as SCSI... [-- Attachment #2: usb.ids_add_uas.patch --] [-- Type: text/plain, Size: 259 bytes --] --- usb.ids_orig 2017-04-21 16:59:17.000000000 -0400 +++ usb.ids 2019-08-17 00:05:51.688459268 -0400 @@ -18012,6 +18012,7 @@ 00 Control/Bulk/Interrupt 01 Control/Bulk 50 Bulk-Only + 62 UAS C 09 Hub 00 Unused 00 Full speed (or root) hub
On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 06:01:45PM -0400, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote:
> I noticed that when I use "lsusb -v" on a UAS-enabled drive enclosure,
> the bInterfaceProtocol line for #80/0x50 has a "protocol name" label but the
> one for #98/0x62 does not:
>
>
> ========
> # lsusb -v -s2:15 | grep Interface
> bDeviceClass 0 (Defined at Interface level)
> bNumInterfaces 1
> Interface Descriptor:
> bInterfaceNumber 0
> bInterfaceClass 8 Mass Storage
> bInterfaceSubClass 6 SCSI
> bInterfaceProtocol 80 Bulk-Only
> iInterface 0
> Interface Descriptor:
> bInterfaceNumber 0
> bInterfaceClass 8 Mass Storage
> bInterfaceSubClass 6 SCSI
> bInterfaceProtocol 98
> iInterface 0
> ========
>
>
>
> So...I was wondering if there was any particular reason that protocol
> 98 isn't included in the usb.ids file?
No one got around to it? Feel free to submit a patch to the web site
that handles these to upate it.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 15:39:33 +0200, Greg KH wrote: > On Sat, Aug 17, 2019 at 06:01:45PM -0400, Nathan Stratton Treadway wrote: > > I noticed that when I use "lsusb -v" on a UAS-enabled drive enclosure, > > the bInterfaceProtocol line for #80/0x50 has a "protocol name" label but the > > one for #98/0x62 does not: [...] > > So...I was wondering if there was any particular reason that protocol > > 98 isn't included in the usb.ids file? > > No one got around to it? Feel free to submit a patch to the web site > that handles these to upate it. Thanks for your reply. I did look there first, but because the "Bulk-Only" and "UAS" protocol names seem so similar but the UAS name hasn't been created for several years now, I started to wonder if there was a more complicated background story behind the situation. Anyway, for what it's worth there was a submission for the UAS protocal name on the USB ID website in 2013 and I submitted another one a couple weeks ago, but so far both are still showing up as grey (which seems to indicate that it's still pending approval by "an admin"). https://usb-ids.gowdy.us/read/UC/08/06/62 I'll see if I can track down contact information for the admin(s) there. Nathan