On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Stefan Koch wrote: > > And call the attribute "authorize", not "interface_authorize". It will > > be obvious that the attribute applies to the interface, because the > > attribute file will be inside the interface's sysfs directory. > How do you solve the problem that the devices authorization show and > store functions are in the same file? > If the others get the same name this wouldn't work. > One option could be to make the functions used by both attributes > (device and interface) and check the device type. > Or is it possible to set a different name in SysFS with indivudual > function name? > Do you now a simplier method? Don't use the DEVICE_ATTR_RW macro; put the actual declaration there instead. For example, instead of doing static DEVICE_ATTR_RW(authorized); do static struct device_attribute dev_attr_intf_authorized = __ATTR(authorized, S_IWUSR | S_IRUGO, intf_authorized_show, intf_authorized_store); > > > bus_probe_device() checks the autoprobe status... Otherwise a getter for > > > the autoprobe status must implemented... > > > > Actually, this isn't necessary at all. After updating all the > > "authorize" attributes, the user can simply write the interface names > > to /sys/bus/usb/drivers_probe. This has the advantages of using a mask > > without the disadvantages. > > I have tested it. If the autoprobing is disbaled and device_attach() > will used the interface driver binds, too. If bus_probe_device() is used > the driver doesn't binds. > > The manaual probing is possible in both cases, that is correct. > But only bus_probe_device() could avoid driver probing after > authorization. > So I think the move from the one header file to the other makes sense. If autoprobing is disabled, all the user has to do is avoid writing to /sys/bus/usb/drivers_probe. 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
