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 :)
Hey, those tech terms have always been overloaded. No point in suggesting that it's only USB (or the driver model!) that does it. (Although the driver model's use of "name" to be a non-unique string was very avoidable; names are used for lookups, except in the driver model.)
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?
Things work today, but the terminology can be misleading.
One driver per device makes a lot of sense, it's just that it wasn't until 2.6 kernels that Linux-USB really started to make the relevant distinctions. "usb_interface" is the proper analogue to "pci_dev", not "usb_device".
If the i2c folk want multiplexing, likely they're missing some kind of layer ... :)
- Dave
------------------------------------------------------- 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
