Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:46:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:46:30 -0400 Received: from imo-m05.mx.aol.com ([64.12.136.8]:19407 "EHLO imo-m05.mx.aol.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:46:30 -0400 Message-ID: <3D5C14B4.1090706@netscape.net> Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 20:53:08 +0000 From: Adam Belay User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020508 Netscape6/6.2.3 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: greg@kroah.com, Patrick Mochel CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: driverfs: driver interface References: <3D5AD6BF.8060609@netscape.net> <20020815050419.GB30226@kroah.com> <3D5B885E.5000407@netscape.net> <20020815162308.GC32542@kroah.com> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------040105040101060204080409" X-Mailer: Unknown (No Version) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3027 Lines: 71 --------------040105040101060204080409 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit greg@kroah.com wrote: > >But a PCI bus could also be present, with a USB controller, and the hid >driver would be able to handle devices on it too. So how would you show >this "dual" relationship then? > Good point. Check this out. Rather than explaining it, I've attached it to this email. It might solve this problem. It's based on an idea I stated earlier. I haven't quite worked out the details yet and I'm not really even sure if it's the best thing to do. I created a sample interface comprised of folders and links and then tarred and gzipped it. I'm looking forward to some reactions on it. (look in ./driver) Also I have two questions: 1.) Is it worth it to remove the bus interface? my answer: I think it is because an interface in which drivers can have children is far more flexable and scaleable. Also it would result in less code. I'm looking for some feedback so I can revise my current efforts. 2.) Should driver management occur through driver model interfaces? my answer: I already have the code to do this, it's just a matter of what's the best way to manage drivers. I feel that the driver model is the best place because it offers the most flexability and it allows for control over all drivers, not just modules. Thanks, Adam PS: I'm currently working on a patch that just implements the read for "driver" as discussed earlier. --------------040105040101060204080409 Content-Type: application/octet-stream; name="driverfs.tar.gz" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="driverfs.tar.gz" H4sICMoOXD0AA3RlbXBfdGFydzlFN25iLnRhcgDtm92OmzAQRvMoeYFu/e/nISGbRUoVBEnV ffvamGwb7FQdaTA337mBCyQ7Oh7PjCHt0P08De/j9916CGGEtzZchfRWxmvkcU333irnvZHW 7YSUxqvd3q44py/u460Z9vtd8+PwS/7jueF6vdWYT2Xah//4+1ZaBAT/1mkf/Cvj4L8Kz/77 Yyf4FwHNvwr+tZYC/mvw7H/8XCMR0ONfawH/Vfjyn25WyQAU/1bH/K+8h/8qLP2/X659/8m7 DCj+Y+IX0oQFAP81WPq/9Jvmf+OMifu/Eaj/qrD035z7czPwdgKk/V9M8W+Eg/8aLP1/dC37 BkDyr2yMf6sR/1VY+u+bob9uF//GOTnFf3gc/ivwyv+l5xsj1PPCh4Lu//1b60L9r97eWOdR BP6L/rv2xDYGyb+O9Z8T4TL555xHEfh/8r/GCRAl/4cnYv53OP+pQ8l/OgPgG4MQ/7N/Z2L/ H+Ofey4Z8J/5n3MA2xgk/yLmfy/UvP9zzyUD/jP/42nomgvfGJT8772e4l/p5J97Lhnw/+T/ 2Azt4c5bA5D6f5n6P2GQ/2vwyv99PLCNQdn/dVwnof4Pj03xzzmPIvBf9M+579L8i5j/lRLY /2uQ9f/HbtP+T2mdzn9x/leFkv/5HRDbGJT6z+qY/51zc/3PPZcM+M/8b9j/mbABRP/eS/R/ NSj5n2sAtjFo8e9S/Nvkn3suGfCf+ec+c6fUfyn/hy4Q5/9VKPnn7rlI8W+S/8f5L/q/dSn5 3/T8L53/a+vQ/9Vg6T/st1v2f8bI9P2PwvlfFZb+w377bbxdh+bMtw4o/rWc9n8VLvBfgYL/ bd//uxT/Ft9/VqHk/6NrWccgvf9N339JPdd/3HPJgP/M/185gGUMmv8Q/0po9ef9D+tcMuD/ +f3/VG9v9v8f4+O9NErj/z9VeOGf9bNbUv83+bfaKHz/CwAAAAAAAAAAcPEboUOr5wBQAAA= --------------040105040101060204080409-- - 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/