On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 11:22:49AM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > Alan Stern wrote: > > >The real terminology problem is the mismatch between driver-model usage > >and USB usage. > > Considering which came first, the problem is "driver model" terminology.
No, USB overloads tech terms to mean their own thing. It's caused me many a headache trying to work through the driver model and how USB can fit in it over the past 2 years :) > Notice that it doesn't handle either PCI or USB properly, and for > the same reason: multi-function devices. But a "pci_dev" is a > function, not a device, so the problem is hidden there ... unlike > for USB. I don't understand what you're saying here. pci_dev is a struct device that can only be bound to one driver. Now some people (like the i2c group) don't necessarily like this, but for now that's the way it is going to work. Is there problems with this that you can see? Oh, and just a note while we are talking about the driver model and USB, I just found some nasty race condition issues with the way interfaces are struct devices thanks to a nice paranoid patch that I've just checked into my bk tree. I think I'll try to hash out a solution to it this week at OLS over a lot of beer. If anyone wants to join me... thanks, greg k-h ------------------------------------------------------- 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
