Hi, On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 04:27:49PM +0100, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > On Thu, Jan 24 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > the benefit is that we will be able to go ahed with configfs-based > > binding and will be able to drop duplicated gadget code between legacy > > (non-composite) and composite framework with the function drivers. > > I'm not sure whether keeping gadgetfs around is such a big issue > though. It would be legacy, deprecated piece of code which cannot be > used with composite functions, but so what?
When you have to keep an eye on over 100KLOCs, it helps sharing code as much as possible. > Obviously I won't be stopping anyone from creating a compatibility > layer, but I really don't think it's worth it. If it were, I'd write > functionfs to use gadgetfs' interface in the first place. Right, that would've been the best approach. -- balbi
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
