Jason Thorpe <thor...@me.com> writes: [snip]
>> What would be wrong with attaching an ugen to interface 1 instead of >> an ucom in the ftdi driver itself? > > ugen can’t currently attach to things other than uhub. I think attaching > ugen as the leaf is the wrong model, though; ugen should be what the kernel > drivers themselves attach to, IMO. This would probably make it very possible to have a USBIP server. For that, you need to more or less be able to do ugen against any physically present USB device, without the specific device drivers getting in the way. Even if you had to detach the specific driver, to get ugen exposed.... that would be ok, even better if you didn't have to do that, of course... According to the man page for ugen there is a way to compile a kernel such that ugen takes priority over the specific driver, but that is more than a little clunky in the USBIP server case. This is the ugenif case that was mentioned before. > -- thorpej -- Brad Spencer - b...@anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS - http://anduin.eldar.org
