lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2014]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Disable bus's drivers_autoprobe before rootfs has mounted
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 03:02:12PM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 02:36:27PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:29:57AM +0800, Peter Chen wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:35:07PM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:10:00PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > > > > Let's take USB peripheral as an example, there is a device for
> > > > > > udc, and a device driver for usb gadget driver, at default, we want
> > > > > > the device to be bound to driver automatically, this is what
> > > > > > we have done now. But if there are more than one udcs and gadget
> > > > > > drivers (eg one B port for mass storage, another B port for usb ethernet),
> > > > > > the user may want to have specific binding (eg, udc-0 -> mass storage,
> > > > > > udc-1 -> usb ethernet), so the binding will be established
> > > > > > after rootfs has mounted. (This feature is implementing)
> > > > >
> > > > > Then there better be a way to describe this on the kernel command line
> > > > > (i.e. module paramaters), right? Which is a total mess, why not just
> > > > > not bind anything in this case and let the user pick what they want?
> > > >
> > > > you can also blacklist all gadget drivers and manually probe them or -
> > > > get this - you can refrain from using gadget drivers and use libusbg to
> > > > build the gadget drivers out of raw usb functions, then bind them to the
> > > > UDC of your liking.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am just worried if we change the behaviour of using gadget driver,
> > > can it be accepted by user? If you think it can be accepted if we can
> > > have some docs, we can implement manually binding for gadget driver
> > > from now on.
> >
> > user shouldn't have to deal with direct module insertion/removal (unless
> > he's a developer and actually *wants* to do that). Docs are already in
> > tree. The entire configfs interface has been documented, it's based on
> > those documents that Matt started writing libusbg.
> >
> > --
> > balbi
>
> Yes, gadget-configfs is a good direction.
>
> I would like to know your plan for other gadget drivers (g_mass_storage,
> g_webcam, etc)

they can be built dynamically too. We only provided a version of
g_mass_storage in order to avoid regressions. We can't simply remove
that driver from the kernel.

> All functions will be supported by configfs in future, and current
> driver will be deleted?

I don't think we will be able to delete legacy drivers, but they're all
supported through configfs. I guess only webcam is missing.

> - If yes, how to cover the user who still use the old file system?
> - If no, which binding way for udc and gadget driver will be used?

going forward, we want to stick with configfs.

--
balbi
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2014-06-12 19:41    [W:0.048 / U:15.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site