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
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
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.
...
>
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
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
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
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
>
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
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
> >
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_device code
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 new
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
hopefully,
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 subsystem.
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 after most
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 the driver
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.
...
converting to
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 the driver
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
