> I also never advocated removing topology information. We already have it > via an ioctl call. I just don't want topology exposed in the directory > structure for usbdevfs. > > In that case, we're forcing the information on everyone if they care or > not, and most programs don't care.
Hmm ... today we force "addressing information" on everyone regardless of whether they care, and unlike topology info it's quite useless. For backwards compatibility, I think "usbdevfs" should likely not change very much. I can imagine replacing "bus number" with a stable ID (like PCI slot/function), and "bus address" with a different one (encoding topology without new directory names). Adding more directory structure would seem trouble-prone to me. But I could imagine something else working a lot better than "usbdevfs". It's just "preliminary" after all, and now folk have had a chance to learn a lot more about how to expose USB to user mode drivers. There's no reason not to leverage that knowledge to create a better model. - Dave _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
