Am Freitag, den 12.06.2015, 16:34 -0400 schrieb Alan Stern: > On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Stefan Koch wrote: > > > Am Freitag, den 12.06.2015, 14:09 -0400 schrieb Alan Stern: > > > On Fri, 12 Jun 2015, Stefan Koch wrote: > > > There is a lot of questionable material here. > > > > > > First of all, I agree with Krzysztof that having an "authorized" > > > attribute in each interface's sysfs directory would be simpler and > > > easier to use than having a bitmask of all authorized interfaces. > > OK I can provide a patch for it. But note that the mask allows to enable > > multiple interfaces at once. And the mechanism does enable all > > (multiple) interfaces first and then does start the driver probing for > > all interfaces. This mechanism is not possible without a mask. > > You could probe all the interfaces whenever any interface is > authorized. Or there could be a separate mechanism to initiate > probing. > Does this affect any running communication with the interface? I'll send a simple patch. So in the one case the mask could used and in the other case the interface attribute. > > But the attribute may be useful for single interfaces that work alone. > > > > > > Secondly, the patches have not been carefully edited. There are > > > several misspelled words in comments and descriptions. And why does > > > patch 3/5 modify drivers/base/base.h and include/linux/device.h? > > > > > It's needed that bus_probe_device() is defined in hub.c. To start > > probing after authorize an interface. > > How about calling device_attach() instead? bus_probe_device() checks the autoprobe status... Otherwise a getter for the autoprobe status must implemented... > > > > Thirdly, what is the purpose of the mask_changed bit? The changelog > > > describes it as "a status bit to control a manual setting of the mask", > > > which is not very clear. _How_ does it control manual setting of the > > > mask? _Why_ does manual setting of the mask need to be controlled? > > > > > If someone sets the mask the bit get's TRUE. After setting a new > > configuration it is set back to FALSE. > > > > So you could check if it is needed to ensure correct mask setting > > (again). > > I don't understand. If you want to make sure the mask is set > correctly, you need to check the mask's _current_ value. You don't > care whether the mask has been changed from its _initial_ value. If you connect a device to an usb port udev runs for the device and all interfaces. If you change a configuration per hand udev runs only for interfaces, not for the device. So if you want to avoid to set the device's mask multiple times a status bit helps. > > Alan Stern > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
