On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 06:29:11AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > I don't know of anyone using the usbdevfs interface on devices that have > > a kernel driver associated with it. Does anyone else? > > Well, it's the clean way to construct the device tree in userland. > Parsing the "devices" file is problematic in various cases.
What cases? I don't know of cases that aren't just as hard as parsing the device tree by walking the directories. The "devices" file does have some problems that I can't see easy solutions to (if the file is greater than 1 page, the tree is walked more than one time, generating all of the string usb queries multiple times.) I'm looking at using the seq_file interface that is now in the kernel, but I'm going to wait until the device tree stuff is finished, as we need good reference counting to get it to work properly. > In general, when the questions involve mapping hardware (as > exposed by "usbfs" :) to logical devices (as exposed by kernel > drivers, and in some cases by smart enough apps), or vice > versa, neither "usbfs" nor the kernel driver is currently enough. Ah, the whole device naming problem, which I see this thread has spun off into. I'm staying away from that topic for now :) > In fact I also want to see the USB device tree exposed using better > names -- as in, ones that expose the device tree, hubs in their proper > places, instead of being based on unstable device addressing. So a topology tree? That's a good thing, and is what I think the driverfs interface will show (as the new driver model needs a tree for power management to work properly.) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
