> > What is specific about USB in that regard?
> > It would seem to me that you'd better export something that stays
> > the same across reboot, but don't call it USB_something.
>
> I'm not sure I understand your question or implication.
> Why shouldn't USB-specific identifiers be USB_something?
The interpretation is specific to USB.
But having a physical path that survives reboot is a problem all
bus systems have.
There are as I see it, two ways of recognising a device,
a unique identifier and physical path. User space may want
both or one of them. You cannot know thus should export both.
Yet the most basic function of such a 'permanent path' is
entering it into a table to tell knew devices apart from devices
already known which an old configuration is available for.
That is not specific to USB, because you can treat the exported
information as an opaque token that you simply compare to.
> > DEVPATH indeed seems to be an inferior choice, because you
> > need extra knowledge to extract a permanent path out of it.
>
> Knowledge you can't generally have, too: which bus-specific
> parts of DEVPATH have that information (if any).
Yes, taking it is a layering violation.
Regards
Oliver
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: To learn the basics of securing
your web site with SSL, click here to get a FREE TRIAL of a Thawte
Server Certificate: http://www.gothawte.com/rd524.html
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
