On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:13:26AM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > No, I'll say that we need to stay one physical device per device in the > > tree. > > But we aren't that way today. Examples:
<snip> Ok, you're right. We want to tell the drivers to shut down (remember, the original goal of driverfs was for power management), so all drivers that attach to a device need to be shown. I'll play with the code some more and make this kind of change. > > If you want to do an interface tree, let's put that in usbfs, > > where it belongs :) > > Ah, but changing usbfs is impractical at this point since lots of > userspace programs rely on it not changing. Which is why I > was pointing this out in the context of driverfs, which can still > be improved in such ways ... "usbdevfs" was always advertised > as "preliminary", anyway! :) Heh, I took the "preliminary" tag off of it a short while ago, as so many different userspace programs were using it. Maybe usbfs2? :) Seriously, I've had some ideas of a different way to implement the functionality of usbfs, possibly without all of the ioctl calls, but I have not had the time to experiment with it... thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
