Re: [PATCH] driverfs support for USB - take 2

[Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>]

On Sat, Feb 02, 2002 at 11:13:26AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > No, I'll say that we need to stay one physical device per device in the
> > tree. 
> 
> But we aren't that way today.  Examples:

<snip>

Ok, you're right.  We want to tell the drivers to shut down (remember,
the original goal of driverfs was for power management), so all drivers
that attach to a device need to be shown.

I'll play with the code some more and make this kind of change.

> >     If you want to do an interface tree, let's put that in usbfs,
> > where it belongs :)
> 
> Ah, but changing usbfs is impractical at this point since lots of
> userspace programs rely on it not changing.  Which is why I
> was pointing this out in the context of driverfs, which can still
> be improved in such ways ... "usbdevfs" was always advertised
> as "preliminary", anyway! :)

Heh, I took the "preliminary" tag off of it a short while ago, as so
many different userspace programs were using it.  Maybe usbfs2? :)

Seriously, I've had some ideas of a different way to implement the
functionality of usbfs, possibly without all of the ioctl calls, but I
have not had the time to experiment with it...

thanks,

greg k-h