On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:13:55PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 04:04:42PM -0800, steph wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 01:21:39PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 12:42:48PM -0800, Stephanie Wallick wrote:
> > > > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(mausb_register_ms_driver);
> > >
> > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL()? I have to ask...
> > >
> > The source is dual-licenced under BSD and GPL. It was our understanding
> > that dual-licensed should use EXPORT_SYMBOL() instead. Is that wrong?
>
> Talk to your company lawyers please to get confirmation of what you want
> to do here, I can't answer this question, I just have to ask...
>
We have permission to go forward with the dual BSD/GPL license. I will leave
as is unless there is a future issue.
> > > > +static int mausb_hcd_init(void)
> > > > +{
> > > > + int ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + /* register HCD driver */
> > > > + ret = platform_driver_register(&mausb_driver);
> > >
> > > Why is this a platform driver? How does this relate to platform
> > > hardware?
> > >
> > The driver doesn't require platform resources. It looks like a host
> > controller driver but communicates over the network instead of to
> > a physical host controller. There is no MA USB-specific hardware.
> >
> > Should we use a struct device instead of a struct platform_device?
>
> Yes, please make it a "virtual" device.
>
Will do.
Thanks,
Stephanie
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
