On Sat, Dec 08, 2001, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 09:56:21PM -0500, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 08, 2001, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
Shouldn't this be done in userspace? Wouldn't the existing topology information be good in that case? JE _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
