On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, David Brownell wrote:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Montag, 21. Juli 2003 20:02 schrieb Alan Stern:
> >
> >>devices; it disconnects drivers from interfaces. So I renamed it
> >>usb_remove_driver(). Luckily it's not used in many places.
> >
> >
> > Quite misleading as well :-)
> > It doesn't remove a driver, as the driver stays loaded.
> > I suggest calling it usb_unlink_interface_driver()
>
> I think of the relevant operation as (un)binding drivers
> to devices; my suggestion would be using that terminology.
>
> There's a basic terminology problem with the USB driver
> callbacks, that "disconnect" must implement "unbind"
> (probe == bind) and it has nothing to do with any kind
> of physical disconnect... and this causes confusion,
> since physical disconnect must always cause unbinding,
> but (the confusion) unbinding doesn't always involve a
> disconnect (which is what current names strongly imply).
The real terminology problem is the mismatch between driver-model usage
and USB usage.
A USB device doesn't fit well in the driver model.
A USB interface is a driver-model device.
A driver-model interface has nothing to do with USB interfaces.
I approve of Oliver's suggestion.
Alan Stern
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: VM Ware
With VMware you can run multiple operating systems on a single machine.
WITHOUT REBOOTING! Mix Linux / Windows / Novell virtual machines at the
same time. Free trial click here: http://www.vmware.com/wl/offer/345/0
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
