> > I applied this, and have to point out that it's got two
> > incompatibilities with the current usbdevfs code (that I
> > noticed):
> >
> > - Current names vs new ones, for the first root hub:
> >
> > /proc/bus/ usb/001/001 ... usbdevfs rules
> > /devfs/ usb/bus1/device1 ... rule in this patch
>
> This is to keep it consistent with the rest of the devfs naming scheme.
But it's a change (two!), and you'd said the only change was
in the directory prefix.
> > - Read of "device1" no longer returns the device descriptor.
>
> If this is true, there's a bug. It's supposed to return the device
> descriptor, and then all of the config descriptors afterwards.
I saw no device descriptors; the first two bytes of the file
were zero, indicating much strangeness.
Seeing config descriptors (order 0..N I assume?) is good, I've
wanted ways to get them without talking to the devices, but I
need the device descriptors first!!
(The file size was zero too ... doesn't need to be.)
> It's an extension of the API.
Your original description didn't mention such extensions.
Or the filename changes ...
> > So on grounds that it's API-incompatible, I'd say it needs
> > more work yet. Neither of these changes was mentioned as
> > being intended ("same API") ... what's the deal?
>
> It is the same API. The first problem isn't part of the API and the second
> is a bug. I'll look into that.
Is there some other way to get the device address than by
parsing the filename? It's part of the API. It's not a
huge one, but such changes broke all code that parsed the
device names to get device addresses.
> > I'd sure rather see "ohci@address" and "uhci@port" addresses
> > for the busses, since that style name is not a function of the
> > order I modprobed drivers or plugged in hardware.
No response?
> > Changing
> > the device names doesn't seem like it was necessary.
>
> You are correct, it is not necessary, but it keeps everything
> consistent.
It's a minor change, but when you change things in the API,
you should tell folk that their programs may be breaking.
You'd advertised this as "just changes the usbdevfs prefix"
and it's certainly not that kind of patch. It's one that
applications need time to respond to.
- Dave
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
