Richard Owlett <rowl...@cloud85.net> writes: > On 06/01/2018 08:21 AM, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 08:23:42AM -0400, Stefan Monnier wrote: >>>> The one choice you have is that one of both sides takes a step >>>> back and plays "gadget" [...] >> >>> The gadget API is the programming API offered by the kernel for the OTG >>> ports: no OTG => no gadget! >>> >>>> [OTG] >> >>> More importantly, the USB ports which support OTG are driven by >>> different hardware. >> >> Ah, so the hardware has to play along... >> >>> Right, you need both your hardware's USB port to support OTG and you >>> need your kernel to have a driver that supports this hardware. >>> AFAIK the driver is usually available. >> >> Did I say I was handwaving? >> >> Thanks for the clarifications! >> > > It also suggests that I frequently grasp some of the implications of > what I read. Thank you. > As an illustration of my mindset: > If they had really intended USB to be *UNIVERSAL* serial bus, then it > should have been OTG from the get go. > P.S. I know of thousands of reasons they did not. > Vast majority preceded by $ ;/
This depends on what you mean by "universal". It was intended to be a protocol for computers to use to communicate with peripherals; "universal" in this context was restricted to peripherals.