On Sat, Dec 08, 2001, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 :)
You can't say that. You took the maintainer job knowing full well we would expect you to get involved in the messy stuff :) > > 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.) I've never liked this idea. It only serves to complicate things. The only use for the topology is to budget power and power management. We currently keep the necessary information for power budgeting but don't actually do it yet. For power management, I don't think we have much choice and must internally track the topology so the ordering is done correctly. The rest of the USB code just doesn't care. I think exposing it via usbdevfs will just complicate things where it isn't needed. JE _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
