On Mon, 4 Feb 2008, Oliver Neukum wrote: > Am Montag, 4. Februar 2008 16:36:51 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > That's because you don't bind usbfs to a device through sysfs. You > > bind it by running a program that calls the USBDEVFS_CLAIMINTERFACE > > ioctl. > > True, and unavoidable given the temporal order of usbfs and sysfs. Though > looking at it now, isn't that a misdesign? IMHO we should avoid it in usbfs2.
I don't know -- it depends on some fundamental design decisions about how usbfs2 will work, and I haven't tried to follow the progress in that area. For example, usbfs essentially binds an interface to an open file. Any task with a descriptor for that open file can do I/O through the interface's endpoints (although there may be some question as to which tasks receive the signal when an async I/O completes). usbfs2 doesn't have to work that way. Instead interfaces could be bound to usbfs2 itself, and then usbfs2 would need to have some way of deciding which tasks are allowed to use the interface's endpoints. But maybe this has already been settled -- like I said, I don't know what's happening with usbfs2. Alan Stern - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
