[riot-devel] USB PID number

Hauke Petersen hauke.petersen at fu-berlin.de
Fri Mar 1 09:54:05 CET 2019


Hi,

fully agree. +1 to go with the two PID solution.

And I'd say we can always revisit the VID situation if someone comes up 
with a good justification why we would need one...

Cheers,
Hauk

On 2/26/19 10:21 AM, Dylan Laduranty wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Le mar. 26 févr. 2019 à 09:51, Koen Zandberg <koen at bergzand.net 
> <mailto:koen at bergzand.net>> a écrit :
>
>     Hi Juan,
>
>     On 2/25/19 3:19 PM, Juan Ignacio Carrano wrote:
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > First of all, great work. Now to the VID, PID matter: I don't
>     think we
>     > should get any VID. A single PID may be ok.
>     >
>     > Product numbers are for products. RIOT is not a product. Rather,
>     it is
>     > used to build product (or at least that's wath we hope for). Even if
>     > we obtained an ID it would be irrelevant for everyone except
>     > developers: if you develop a device, you should get your OWN
>     ids, you
>     > cannot reuse your OS vendor's.
>     >
>     > </snip>
>     >
>     > I think that having a single PID for "Generic RIOT-powered
>     device" (or
>     > something of the sort) is valuable, especially for development, and
>     > for the CI, and we only really need one, not a whole block.
>     That, and
>     > the fact that we have a more or less large project should be enough
>     > justification to get a PID from pid.codes. Of course, the docs
>     should
>     > clearly state that the PID is for use in RIOT development and should
>     > be changed for actual devices.
>     >
>     > A whole VID would not be useful: what would you do with so many
>     PIDs?
>
>     I agree with you here. First of all, I also don't see any use for
>     a VID
>     for RIOT-os, but hey maybe somebody else has a use case for a full
>     VID.
>
>     For me, a hypothetical RIOT-os PID would be used only for development
>     and testing. CI jobs, people wanting to test USB or develop USB
>     devices.
>     As soon as the USB device leaves the building it must have a different
>     VID/PID owned by the developer/company. Having a PID for this is
>     mostly
>     for ease of development, so we don't have to use a random VID/PID with
>     all the consequences. A lot of USB functionality doesn't require a
>     specific VID/PID, but is purely recognized based on the descriptor
>     information.
>
>     A second PID could be required if we have our own DFU enabled RIOT
>     bootloader. For this I wouldn't mind if it was used for actual
>     products
>     as long as the RIOT bootloader is unmodified. This as in if it
>     claims to
>     be the RIOT-os DFU bootloader, it should behave like the RIOT-os
>     bootloader and be able to flash RIOT-os on the mcu with the
>     RIOT-os DFU
>     tooling.
>
> I think Koen perfectly sums up the situation and I agree with him.
> VID is pointless for RIOT, but having two PIDs (one for development, 
> one for DFU) would be great. Of course, it should be clearly state 
> that the devel PID must not be used outside of its original scope.
>
> BTW, If people want to be involve. We must port the lowlevel driver  
> and test the stack against several MCUs (EFM32, STM32, 
> Kinetis,etc...). Any help is welcome !
>
> Cheers,
>
>     Cheers,
>     Koen
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     devel mailing list
>     devel at riot-os.org <mailto:devel at riot-os.org>
>     https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>
>
>
> -- 
> Dylan Laduranty
>
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list
> devel at riot-os.org
> https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.riot-os.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20190301/cb38edb6/attachment.html>


More information about the devel mailing list