On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 11:56:15PM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 23. Juni 2003 17:11 schrieb David Brownell:
> > Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > >>By analogy, you'd be arguing that "audio.c is not a device driver
> > >>in the strict sense" ...
> > >
> > > Yes. We recognise the difference and pu
Am Montag, 23. Juni 2003 17:11 schrieb David Brownell:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> >>By analogy, you'd be arguing that "audio.c is not a device driver
> >>in the strict sense" ...
> >
> > Yes. We recognise the difference and put them into seperate directories.
> > We should do the same for the gadget
Oliver Neukum wrote:
By analogy, you'd be arguing that "audio.c is not a device driver
in the strict sense" ...
Yes. We recognise the difference and put them into seperate directories.
We should do the same for the gadget side.
Maybe someday when the device side tree grows as unwieldy as
the hos
Am Montag, 23. Juni 2003 07:26 schrieb David Brownell:
> Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > looking through gadget it seems to me that two kinds of drivers
> > are mixed that shouldn't be mixed. Ether.c is a not a gadget driver
> > in the strict sense. It implements a class on the gadget's side.
>
> Ether.c
Oliver Neukum wrote:
looking through gadget it seems to me that two kinds of drivers
are mixed that shouldn't be mixed. Ether.c is a not a gadget driver
in the strict sense. It implements a class on the gadget's side.
Ether.c is a gadget driver; there's no rule saying they can't
implement classes.
Hi,
looking through gadget it seems to me that two kinds of drivers
are mixed that shouldn't be mixed. Ether.c is a not a gadget driver
in the strict sense. It implements a class on the gadget's side. I
propose that we call such drivers "service drivers".
Comments?
Regards
