On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 12:35:02 -0800, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
