On Sat, Apr 27, 2002 at 12:12:54AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote: > > What I do question is whether it is worth the trouble. > You get a lot of trouble, like a completly new, unproven, > supporting infrastructure for relatively little gain.
The people with 20 printers or scanners have something to gain (think testing labs) :) > Yes, you are right. I thought about this this morning. > To me the obvious solution would have been to use devfs > and request a dynamic _major_ for every driver that implements > a char device. > In fact would you like an API change to move the devfs stuff into > usbcore ? I see no reason every driver registers itself with devfs. I hate the current implementation of devfs support in the USB drivers too. I'd be willing to take such a patch. > > Please explain. How could this be done within today's framework? And > > remember, 99.9% of all machines do not use devfs today :) This patch > > solves a real problem for all machines, without requiring people to use > > devfs. > > It requires them to use something new totally unproven. > I somehow fail to see the advantage ;-) The scheme is proven in the usb-serial drivers which use the same kind of minor number sharing. I haven't heard of any complaints about how that is implemented :) thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
