> > > Ah, I didn't know that. Unfortunately, not all USB drivers have an > > > /proc/ interface like CPiA. > > > > Ok, sorry for jumping in late here, but no ioctl(). I hate the current > > usbfs ioctl interface and do not want to see that spread at all. usbfs > > could (and will) change to be representation of the usb tree in which no > > ioctls are needed.
That'd be API-incompatible, so it's 2.5+ issue. The problem with saying "I hate that ioctl interface" is that there are still operations that don't map reasonably to read/write/seek. Folk would benefit from being able to bind/unbind drivers from interfaces (viz that recent VMWare note, and there are other cases too). Taking a new approach to usbfs might be productive, but that might make it look more like a driverfs add-on ... :) > > > As to the /devfs name... Could be done, but I would like to put the > > > amount of logic that is needed ina user program to a minimum, so 'old' > > > style /dev should be listed as well. > > > > Major/minor is all that is really needed. If you're using devfs you can > > manipulate devfsd to let you know that a new device has shown up, and > > what its name is. > > Agreed, it's all that is *really* needed. Yet, I do not want to put the > burden on each and every programmer to implement a whole > major-to-devicename over and over again. Tough. Write a simple subroutine that folk can call. Trying to dictate one of N end-user selectable naming options is doomed to failure when done piecemeal. Trying to dictate it on a system-wide basis (like devfs does) isn't necessarily a formula for success either. - Dave _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
