On Thu, Aug 01 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi folks,
as we all know naming conventions are fragile and easy to break. We've
had weird endpoint naming conventions for far too long in the gadget
framework.
I'm trying to come up with means to get rid of that and, one of the
ideas, was to add
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 12:29:55PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi folks,
as we all know naming conventions are fragile and easy to break. We've
had weird endpoint naming conventions for far too long in the gadget
framework.
I'm trying to come up with means to get rid of that and, one
On 08/01/2013 11:29 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi folks,
Hi felipe,
as we all know naming conventions are fragile and easy to break.
We've had weird endpoint naming conventions for far too long in the
gadget framework.
I'm trying to come up with means to get rid of that and, one of
the
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:47:56AM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
On 08/01/2013 11:29 AM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi folks,
Hi felipe,
as we all know naming conventions are fragile and easy to break.
We've had weird endpoint naming conventions for far too long in the
gadget
On 08/01/2013 12:18 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote:
yeah, I want to drop gadget_is_*() altogether and add feature flags
for the struct usb_gadget too. I mean, gadget driver shouldn't need
to know that it's running on dwc3, it needs to know if the UDC
supports alternate settings.
One of them is to
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi folks,
as we all know naming conventions are fragile and easy to break. We've
had weird endpoint naming conventions for far too long in the gadget
framework.
I'm trying to come up with means to get rid of that and, one of the
ideas, was to add
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:44:59AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
On Thu, 1 Aug 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote:
Hi folks,
as we all know naming conventions are fragile and easy to break. We've
had weird endpoint naming conventions for far too long in the gadget
framework.
I'm trying to
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 11:58:30AM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
The endpoint naming convention currently determines type and direction.
It works okay for simple cases but not for more complicated ones. For
example, it can't handle endpoints that support bulk or interrupt but
not
