Hi Greg, > I haven't read all of OBMF, as obviously that isn't what is being > proposed here, I was just complaining about the madness of attempting to > create a device tree representation for a single USB device that wanted > to be carved up into different virtual devices because no one decided to > learn from history. > > I have other objections about OBMF-ICP, but that's not what this thread > is about, sorry. Please propose your own patch series for that and I'll > be glad to criticize it there.
OK, fair enough - I'll defer this for an OBMF-ICP submission, rather than piling it on to this LSTP thread. > > With OBMF-ICP's super-minimal core protocol, and the use-case > > appropriate channels, seems like a suitable approach to me. > > > > The USB-IF has a class ID allocated for OBMF-ICP interface descriptors, > > with the intention that we have multiple vendor implementations of the > > common protocol; we would like Linux to be one of those. > > It's always fun to make a new spec and protocol, We seem to have different definitions of "fun" :D Thanks for the discussion so far, I'll follow up again when we have a series to propose. That shouldn't be too long. Cheers, Jeremy _______________________________________________ Openipmi-developer mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openipmi-developer
