Score:0

lsusb missing output

dz flag

I use to get detailed output with lsusb. However, the output since recently is being displayed in the following format without any descriptive string(s) which is strange:

$ lsusb
1d6b:0003 (bus 2, device 1)
13d3:56a6 (bus 1, device 4) path: 6
8087:0025 (bus 1, device 3) path: 5
09da:2403 (bus 1, device 2) path: 4
1d6b:0002 (bus 1, device 1)

Did something accidentally changed/deleted which could've lead up to output shown above? Thanks in advance for any help and insights

David avatar
cn flag
Only you would know what you have changed and or deleted.
PonJar avatar
in flag
Try `lsusb -v` that will increase verbosity. Perhaps you previously had an alias that added the -v automatically
hr flag
The mapping between numerical IDs and human-readable device descriptions relies on the file `/var/lib/usbutils/usb.ids` I think - is that file present on your system?
jvars avatar
dz flag
yes the file is indeed present. I can't think of any reason as why `lsusb` all of a sudden changed its output format.
jvars avatar
dz flag
@PonJar I checked with `lsusb -v` and still the same output.
hr flag
... actually it looks like `/var/lib/usbutils/usb.ids` may no longer be relevant: `lsusb` appears to read the information from `/run/udev/data` which in turn appears to be populated from `/lib/udev/hwdb.d/20-usb-vendor-model.hwdb`
Score:0
dz flag

It turned out the default lsusb utility from usbutils package was overridden in the path variable with another lsusb utility from apio package, which i installed a couple of days ago. Falling back onto /usr/bin/lsusb restored the actual output.

I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.