Re: [RFC][PATCH] fs: configfs: programmatically create config groups

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>]

On 11/28/2012 09:10 AM, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote:
>> Here I understand it. This is to some point a limitation of the gadget
>> framework. We do know the number of interface that will be available
>> before we bind. We simply don't know the endpoint number. There are two
>> exceptions to what I just wrote:
>> - g_zero drops the ISO endpoints if the UDC has no UDC support for it.
>>     This should not happen on-the-fly.
>> - UAC2 may want to make the number interfaces (and therefore configure
>>     able) and function (play / record) configurable.
>>
>
> So do we know everything before bind or we don't?

After some sleep I think we do.

>> That was wrong. Pushing it into configs is better but I am not sure we
>> need it. I understand the need for things that pop later like interfaceXX
>> but couldn't the user manually create them if he needs them?
>>
>
> What name shall the user use? How to know which user-created directory
> should correspond to which actual interface? If there are, say,
> 3 interfaces, what would:
>
> $ mkdir interface873246
>
> mean?
>
> And in general, what would
>
> $ mkdir rykcq1234
>
> mean?
>
> Let's go one directory deeper in the hierarchy and suppose there is
> no programmatic directories creation. So we
>
> $ cd interface<something>
>
> so that we can create the endpoint directories.
> And now what? What names shall the user use for the endpoint
> directories? Oh, that's simple: just see what the endpoint
> directories' names are. But wait, aren't we just creating them?
>
> Please also see Michał's point about user interface.

Yeah I did. Now I'm okay with creating new directories but we should
keep this to a minimum and encode as much information possible in
directory's name.

>
> Andrzej

Sebastian