Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread David Brownell
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 2:05 pm, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > I think I was shopping around for the examples of proper driver model > integration in 2.6.2 - 2.6.3 timeframe for the serio bus. I was > looking at how USB was working around the fact that one can not > add/remove children from the probe/r

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:14:40 -0800, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > You still haven't answered my question. My observation was that > only the class code can in any sense be called "new" ... so your > blanket statement seemed to overlook several essential points! > > Which parts of th

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread Dominik Brodowski
On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 01:14:40PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > That pre-driver model stuff went away in maybe 2.6.5 or so, I > forget just when. If you think those changes can easily be > reversed, I suggest you think again ... they enabled a LOT of > likewise-overdue cleanups. ... > convertin

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread David Brownell
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:48 pm, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:35:02 -0800, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:14 pm, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > > > It looks to me (and I might be wrong) that USB was never really > > > integrated into t

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:35:02 -0800, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:14 pm, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > > It looks to me (and I might be wrong) that USB was never really > > integrated into the driver model. It was glued with it but the driver > > model came

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread David Brownell
On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:14 pm, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > It looks to me (and I might be wrong) that USB was never really > integrated into the driver model. It was glued with it but the driver > model came after most of the domain was defined, and it did not get to > be "bones" of the subsyst

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:51:21 -0800, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > class interfaces are not going away, there's a good need for them like > you have pointed out. I'm not expecting to just delete those api > functions tomorrow, but slowly phase out the use of them over time, and > hopefull

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 11:34:15 -0800, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 12:47:38PM -0500, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > Hi Greg, > > > > On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 09:08:34 -0800, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > So I'll be slowly converting the kernel over to using this

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

2005-03-15 Thread Dmitry Torokhov
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 20:08:47 +0100, Dominik Brodowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 09:08:34AM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > Then I moved the USB host controller code to use this new interface. > > That was a bit more complex as it used the struct class and struct > > class_devic