On 29.11.2010, at 18:49, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 11/29/2010 11:37 AM, Attila Sukosd wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I guess it should be abstract enough to support multiple back-ends, be it a >> kernel driver or through libusb? > > Is this something that should just live in libusb? > > If what libusb presented QEMU was actually implemented as USB-over-IP, QEMU > wouldn't know the difference at all. I think it would also be very useful to > be able for libusb-based applications to work with remote devices. > > What is unclear to me is what role QEMU would play in setting up remove > USB-over-IP devices. Pushing it down to the libusb layer completely takes > QEMU out the picture which creates a clean separation layer. There are > emulated devices in QEMU which we create and control and then there are > passthrough devices that QEMU doesn't have any role in creating.
I agree. And if by any chance the libusb interfaces don't cut it, we should just enhance libusb. Alex