On Thu, 21 Oct 2004, Guennadi Liakhovetski wrote:
> Right, that's logical. But in the case of ub / storage if you compile ub,
> you have no chance to use usb-storage, even if you load it manually and ub
> is not loaded. So, the question is - why cannot we get in this case too 2
> competing drivers, having the ability to use either?
I think the intention was that if ub was available then it would handle
all the devices it could, leaving only the remaining ones for usb-storage.
> I think, I didn't explain my problem exactly. I coompiled all usb drivers
> as modules, including usb-storage and ub. I don't use hotplug. I connect a
> storage device (a card reader with a CF, or a memory stick), load
> usb-storage (or in the reverse order) - it doesn't attach. ub does. In
> drivers/usb/storage/usb.c I see
>
> /* Bulk-only transport for all SubClass values */
> ...
> #if !defined(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UB) && !defined(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_UB_MODULE)
> { USB_INTERFACE_INFO(USB_CLASS_MASS_STORAGE, US_SC_SCSI, US_PR_BULK) },
> #endif
>
> I thought, this was the problem, but I am not sure any more. So, is this
> the expected behaviour or one should be able to use either driver just by
> loading one or another?
This is indeed the expected behavior. If ub is configured then
usb-storage does not advertise support for the standard bulk-only
transpor; devices using that transport are the ones that ub can
handle and so the tables are set up to make sure that usb-storage doesn't
bind to them by accident.
Alan Stern
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
