Re: [9fans] USB developments

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Thu, Jan 15, 2004 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote:
>
> With enough effort put on that, I'd probably agree with you. However,
> I think that would require a lot of effort to learn how to split them clearly
> (consider that you'd want your kernel to be operational despite user programs
> problems).
>
OK, I'm really only interested in viability.  As long as we agree
that it is possible, I assume no one will implement USB management
that will preclude moving in the direction I advocate.
Difficult does not frighten me, short-sighted implementations do.

> Given that, I'd vote for duplication of code. With some effort, the code
> can be borrowed "as is", without keeping a different version.

I think it will need changing, but that the changes can be back
ported to the kernel.  As I mentioned, I think the separation
between userland and kernel drivers is quite blurred by them
appearing as filesystems in both cases.  There are underlying
issues, but I think the similarity is more significant.

My present plan is to strip #U to bare essentials, removing any
knowledge it may have of specific USB features and instead allowing
it to report changes to the configuration as they occur.  I'll use
usbd as the foundation for a daemon that does no more than monitor
these #U reports and allows me to add configuration and initialisation
as I grasp the details better.

++L