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:
[snip]
> > > > +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.
>
Is it OK for our virtual host controller to use struct platform_device?
The other virtual host controllers (usbip/vhci_hcd.c & gadget/udc/dummy_hcd.c)
use the platform_device struct. Unless I am missing something, it doesn't look
like the other virtual host controllers use platform resources.
If it is not ok, is there a good example somewhere of a virtual non-platform
device?
Thank You,
Sean O. Stalley
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
