Re: [linux-usb-devel] Re: [RFC] Changes to the driver model class code.

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:35:02 -0800, David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 March 2005 12:14 pm, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> >
> > It looks to me (and I might be wrong) that USB was never really
> > integrated into the driver model. It was glued with it but the driver
> > model came after most of the domain was defined, and it did not get to
> > be "bones" of the subsystem. This is why it is so easy to deatch it.
> 
> That doesn't seem accurate to me.  Are you thinking maybe about
> just how it uses the class device stuff?  Like the rest of the
> class device support (for all busses!) that did indeed come later.
> You may recall that the first versions of the driver model had
> more or less a big "fixme" where class devices sat...  Or are
> you maybe thinking about peripheral side (not host side) USB?
> 
> But the "struct device" core of the driver model sure looks like
> the bones of USB to me.  Host controllers, hubs, devices, and
> interfaces all use it well, behave well with hot-unplug (which
> is more than many subsystems can say even in 2.6.11!), and even
> handling funky cases like drivers needing to bind to multiple
> interfaces on one device.  That last took quite a while to land,
> it involved ripping out the last pre-driver-model binding code.
> 

David,

I was not criticizing the code, not at all, I was commenting on
evolution of the code (at least the way I perceive it). The fact that
there is (or was until recently) pre-driver-model binding code shows
that merging is still ongoing and this fact makes reversing the
process easier.

-- 
Dmitry