From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Micah Stetson To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: usbd - revision (Was: [9fans] USB developments) Message-ID: <20040115210010.GC27563@epaphras.cnm-vra.com> References: <20040115211012.K25947@cackle.proxima.alt.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2004 13:00:10 -0800 Topicbox-Message-UUID: ba580568-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > 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