Am Montag, 21. Juli 2003 22:44 schrieb Matthew Dharm:
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:27:30PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Montag, 21. Juli 2003 20:02 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > David:
> > >
> > > My last patch for usbcore concerns usb_device_remove() in usb.c. The most
> > > annoying things about it is its name. The routine doesn't remove USB
> > > 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()
>
> Since 'unlink' has special meaning w.r.t URBs, how about
> usb_unassociate_interface_driver() ?
I find David's idea better, because it combines clarity with ease
of spelling.
> > > Disabling and enabling interfaces would be a lot easier and more reliable
> > > if struct urb contained a usb_interface field instead of (or in addition
> > > to) its usb_device field. But that would be an immense change, something
> > > for 2.7.
> >
> > URBs are addressed at device/endpoint pairs. Interfaces don't exist at
> > that level, so I don't think that they should be dragged into it.
> > But I might be wrong.
>
> I've mention Alan's idea before, and gotten the same response. While
> 'interfaces' don't exist at that level, 'interfaces' are the basic unit
> that drivers deal in.
Drivers also deal with endpoint 0 and some with several interfaces.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
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
