On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 09:56:21PM -0500, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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 :)
Yeah, I know it's coming. I just want to stall for time :) We have enough immediate work to do with the power management issues. > > 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. No, the topology can also be used for device naming. The Edgeport driver (before it got merged into the kernel tree) used the topology to specify the minor number of a device. I'd like to move something like that into the main code in the future. There's an old patch at http://www.kroah.com/linux-usb/edgeport if people are interested in how it worked. > We currently keep the necessary information for power budgeting but > don't actually do it yet. Yeah, that should be added to the todo list. > For power management, I don't think we have much choice and must > internally track the topology so the ordering is done correctly. That's what the new driver model will do. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
