On Wed, Mar 20, 2002, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2002 at 05:11:13PM -0500, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > > > > For those things which don't map easily, perhaps we can do some stuff > > still as ioctl's, resetting endpoints and clearing halts for instance. > > Hm, have to try to implement it to see if that's really necessary.
I don't know if you have to implement it to find out. How about a rough design? > > I'm not against this, but I'd like to see a real virtual driver > > filesystem. Changing stuff from ioctl to read()/write() will just make > > my life harder, since I'll have to code it into libusb. Most people > > wouldn't notice a change. > > I agree most people wouldn't notice a change, but more people might be > able to bypass libusb easier :) > > What do you mean, "real virtual driver filesystem"? Something people will accept. /proc has been abused too much for this kind of thing and people bitch about usbdevfs. We snuck it in under people's noses. > > > > The problem with saying "I hate that ioctl interface" is that there are > > > > still operations that don't map reasonably to read/write/seek. > > > > > > What ones? I can't think of any right off the top of my head. > > > > How would you map isochronous onto a read/write interface? > > Isoc isn't handled today by usbfs :) Of course it is. There's a complete URB interface which supports all 4 transfer types. Look for USBDEVFS_SUBMITURB. JE _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
