On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:54:48PM +0100, Kristian Evensen wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 10:38 PM, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> > That's great, and the hid parts of the patch makes sense, keeping the
> > HID driver from binding to it, but for the rest, shouldn't that just be
> > a simple userspace program instead?  We don't like to add kernel drivers
> > that can be done in userspace, and using usbfs/libusb should be really
> > simple for this device from what the driver looks like.
> >
> > So, care to slim down the patch a bunch and resend?
> 
> Sure, no problem. You want a patch containing only the HID-parts?

That would be great, send it to the hid maintainer and cc the list
(using scripts/get_maintainer.pl should tell you the proper people to
send it to.)

> My reason for adding this as a kernel driver was to ease usage of the
> device in scenarios where using libusb is not possible or desirable.
> For example embedded devices with space constraints or being able to
> restart USB ports from Bash-scripts. One use-case I have had for the
> driver is a script which monitors AT-modems by sending "AT" to the
> serial device, and restart the port by pipeing a value into portX if
> no reply has been received for a certain amount of time.

If you can run a bash script, you should be able to run a tiny binary as
well that handles this type of thing.  We don't like adding custom,
non-documented apis to the kernel like this if at all possible,
especially ones that can be handled with userspace programs instead.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to