> From: "Tim Jansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> On Friday 06 April 2001 17:15, you wrote:
> > - Update usbdevfs. Files should be "per-interface", not "per-device",
> > to provide a model that's more consistent with PCI ("per-function").
> > Names should be "stable" and based on topology. (That's a much
> > less evolutionary approach than I think Greg was thinking of... the
> > new dev_t and hotplug work may provide a good context for this.)
[ Restoring the parenthetical comment dropped in quoting ... ]
> Instead of making another USB-specific file system, why don't you try to make
> a generic device tree for all busses?
That was one of the options I was alluding to when I said
"less evolutionary". Getting rid of "usbdevfs" might be
technically possible, but such a "generic tree" would need
to be integrated with other work.
Perhaps someone (Thomas Sailer?) would comment on just why
"usbdevfs" couldn't build on the existing filesystem mechanisms
(as of 2.4.3), or at least why that was the right answer back when
it was created (quite a bit earlier :)
> I may be biased because I work on
> devreg, but I doubt that it makes sense to have dozens of device trees in
> different formats.
Well, each kind of bus has different issues to address, so they
wouldn't normally be identical. But more commonality is IMO
a good idea ... for USB, PCI, SCSI, and more.
- Dave
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
