Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:58:54 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:58:54 -0400 Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net ([206.13.28.241]:39111 "EHLO mta5.snfc21.pbi.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 19 Oct 2002 13:58:53 -0400 Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 11:06:39 -0700 From: David Brownell Subject: Re: Zaurus support for usbnet.c To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-id: <3DB19F2F.2040603@pacbell.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, fr User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020513 References: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1761 Lines: 43 Hi, >>Zaurus doesn't have a stock www.handhelds.org kernel; there's a >>different usb slave/target device driver, which uses different >>framing for the Ethernet packets. Pavel's patch teaches "usbnet" >>about one of those protocols. (The other is MSFT-friendly.) >> >>It's worth mentioning the Yopy here too: Zaurus isn't the only >>SA-1110 based Linux PDA, and its distro is evidently closer to >>the iPAQ distros (but you won't need a WinCE-ectomy). Current >>versions of "usbnet" have support for a recent YOPY version; they >>use different USB vendor and product IDs "out of the box". > > > Why not using the same (the best which ever it is) driver instead of > reinventing the wheel for every SA1110-based devides out there? I think that on the host side the evidence is that "usbnet" is that driver, and Pavel's patch is big step forward. It forces all the remaining questions onto the slave/target side (PDA for now). Now, on the device side ... that's not really my call, but I agree that'd be a good way to go. The question is what's "best"? Last I looked, no www.usb.org class spec or IETF RFC (even I-D) standardized a reasonably simple/robust "IP-over-USB", so there are only vendor-specific solutions. Some of them deal with odd hardware quirks, others deal with MSFT interop. Lots of vendor expectations have unfortunately been set on the MSFT side, where creating product interop problems is sometimes seen as a win in terms of market control or "product differentiation". - Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/