On Thu, Oct 10, 2002, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, 10. Oktober 2002 01:31 schrieb Johannes Erdfelt:
> > On Thu, Oct 10, 2002, Oliver Neukum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've started looking at doing configurations correctly.
> > > There are several questions.
> > >
> > > 1. Must it be legal for a driver to set configuration during probe ?
> >
> > This is tricky. There is a certain bit of coordination that is implied
> > with selecting a configuration since it can change the interfaces
> > available.
> >
> > We don't want to switch a configuration out from under another driver,
> > nor do we want to switch a configuration before another interface is
> > offered it.
> >
> > I'm not sure what the best answer here is and I'm sure how we choose the
> > configuration will determine the answer to this question :)
> 
> I hope the answer is no. Else this'll be very painful.

I hope so too. There's some tricky situations in that case.

I think the big remaining question right now is determining how a
configuration should be elected.

In my devfs patch a long time ago, I had created an election process
where drivers could specify the priority of their support. The highest
priority won.

Here's the thought process I originally used:
- Multiple configurations are rare
- Devices won't change substantially between configurations (ie won't go
  from a keyboard to a cdrom)
- Used typically to provide different levels of support depending on bus
  or host limitations (ie config for lower power, config for generic
  printer class, but another one for a superset ala uss720)

If that's the case, a priority would probably work well.

Can anyone think of a reason to use different configurations outside of
what I was thinking?

> > > 4. May I split usb_disconnect() into an interface and a usb_device
> > > part ?
> >
> > Depends on the intent. If it's to notify a driver that the configuration
> > changed out from underneath it and the interface no longer exists, sure.
> >
> > Other than that, you don't really "disconnect" an interface, but that's
> > just wording.
> 
> Yes, I need infrastructure to "disconnect" the interface without disconnecting
> the usb_interface.

Understood.

This also brings up the question of if we should allow the configuration
to change miduse (meaning after drivers have bound already to any
interfaces)?

JE



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel

Reply via email to