[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] driverfs support for USB - take 2
On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:13:26AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > No, I'll say that we need to stay one physical device per device in the
> > tree.
> But we aren't that way today. Examples:


Ok, you're right. We want to tell the drivers to shut down (remember,
the original goal of driverfs was for power management), so all drivers
that attach to a device need to be shown.

I'll play with the code some more and make this kind of change.

> > If you want to do an interface tree, let's put that in usbfs,
> > where it belongs :)
> Ah, but changing usbfs is impractical at this point since lots of
> userspace programs rely on it not changing. Which is why I
> was pointing this out in the context of driverfs, which can still
> be improved in such ways ... "usbdevfs" was always advertised
> as "preliminary", anyway! :)

Heh, I took the "preliminary" tag off of it a short while ago, as so
many different userspace programs were using it. Maybe usbfs2? :)

Seriously, I've had some ideas of a different way to implement the
functionality of usbfs, possibly without all of the ioctl calls, but I
have not had the time to experiment with it...


greg k-h
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:23    [W:0.046 / U:7.156 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site