![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Thu, Sep 15, 2005 at 08:23:43PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Thursday 15 September 2005 20:04, Kay Sievers wrote: > > I like that the child devices are actually below the parent device > > and represent the logical structure. I prefer that compared to the > > symlink-representation between the classes at the same directory > > level which the input patches propose. > > Why don't we take it a step further and abandon classes altogether? > This way everything will grow from their respective hardware devices. That'd seem like a quite a good idea to me. ;) > Class represent a set of objects with similar characteristics. In > this regard event0 is no "lesser" than input0. Well, input0 itself can't be accessed from userspace, so it's different. > Although they are > linked they are objects of the same importance. I do want to see > all input interfaces without scanning bunch of directories. A directory with symlinks to all the interfaces of the class might make sense. -- Vojtech Pavlik SuSE Labs, SuSE CR - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-09-16 10:06 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||