On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 12:55:34PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > > > > 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.
Agreed. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about dropping support for the existing ioctl usbfs interface, just creating a new one without ioctls. > The problem with saying "I hate that ioctl interface" is that there are > still operations that don't map reasonably to read/write/seek. What ones? I can't think of any right off the top of my head. > Folk would benefit from being able to bind/unbind drivers from > interfaces (viz that recent VMWare note, and there are other cases > too). Agreed. The pencam userspace program has this problem right now with the video kernel driver being bound to the device. I'd love a solution for that right now, so much that I'd be willing to add a new ioctl :) > Taking a new approach to usbfs might be productive, but that > might make it look more like a driverfs add-on ... :) Heh, the idea is the same (no ioctls, read and write different files), but it would be separate from the driverfs tree probably, as it doesn't pertain to the main driverfs issue. See pcihpfs in the kernel right now for an idea of what I am thinking of. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
