Re: usbd - revision (Was: [9fans] USB developments)

[Micah Stetson <micah@cnm-vra.com>]

> the naming problem isn't that usb1/2/ep3data (say) is a funny name:
> at that level it's as good as any other existing one (eg, eia0, sdD0).
> the trouble is that for hardwired devices,
> it's not too bad to name them by physical
> connection (and that's to some extent unambiguous), since it's
> long-lived enough to associate with some higher-level notion
> (eg, my printer is on lpt0), but
> for dynamically-connected devices, the physical connection name
> is still unambiguous, but much less useful, since the printer
> now is usb0/3/ep2data but in a little while it's usb1/2/ep2data,
> depending on which USB slot on my thinkpad i chose.
> (in fact, for USB it's worse because the /2/ and /3/ there are
> dynamically assigned and unpredictable.)

It might be noted that even XP has difficulty with this.
I have a USB 802.11b interface that was configured while
plugged into one USB slot on my wife's laptop.  If I plug
it into the other slot, Windows has no clue that it's
the same device and wants me to re-enter all of the
network config information (SSID, passphrase, etc.).
It's annoying, and it would be nice if Plan 9 got it
right.

Micah