Johannes Erdfelt writes:
> On Mon, Apr 17, 2000, Richard Gooch <rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What I'm basically trying to work out is why you can't have a central
> > pipe which the daemon talks to, and when drivers attach to the
> > interface, the daemon talks to the USB subsystem and does a mknod(2)
> > as appropriate. This is the kind of argument the anti-devfs crowd will
> > make.
>
> Right now? major/minor issues.
>
> We don't have enough.
>
> The nodes I create are either too sparse or too many.
Is it possible to have the USB subsystem pick an unused minor, pass
that over a new usbd protocol, and have the usbd daemon mknod(2) using
that number? So unless you have >256 USB "interfaces" hooked in at
once, you'll be OK.
> No one seems interested in actually following through in increasing
> the major/minor for 2.4 and we need this working for 2.4.
IIRC, a bigger dev_t is a 2.5 issue.
> Even increasing the major/minor would be a band-aid solution.
In what way?
> I'm much more content using a solution which is here today and IMHO
> a good solution.
I agree that devfs is overall cleaner:-) I'm just playing devil's
advocate here so that the pro-devfs argument can be refined and
sharpened.
Regards,
Richard....
Permanent: rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Current: rgooch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|