Am Sonntag, 19. Januar 2003 19:10 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2003 at 12:05:54PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, 19. Januar 2003 06:36 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> > > Does anyone besides me find it a bit odd that we bind drivers to an
> > > interface, yet need to pass the device pointer to functions like
> > > usb_control_msg()?
> >
> > Physically, you send the URB to a device, so why would we hide that?
>
> Well, yes... but what about combination devices? usb-storage and PPP link
> (like some PDA-type units), for example. Drivers don't deal in devices,
> they deal in interfaces.
But not as far as the device control queue is concerned. This is not logical,
but it's the way USB works. Things like the pipe parameter are worse, actually.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.NET email is sponsored by: FREE SSL Guide from Thawte
are you planning your Web Server Security? Click here to get a FREE
Thawte SSL guide and find the answers to all your SSL security issues.
http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?thaw0026en
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
