On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 08:53:57AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 17:09 -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > that would loop through endpoints so that drivers do not have to > > > open-code the loop and we indeed need to fix the drivers that > > blindly > > > grab endpoints at fixed offsets and expect them to be there and have > > > correct types. > > > > Yes, that would work for one single type of endpoint, but lots of > > drivers need/have 2 of the same type/direction, so what would this > > function do then? Error out? Hm, that might work, and it would > > reduce > > a bunch of common code, care to make up a patch for that? > > Hi, > > in that case let us go the whole way. Give drivers a way to describe > what they need that covers all possibilities up to exactly telling the > core what it expects and in which order and numbers. > Actually that would be better in the interface matching code path. Trying to describe a static, or variable, number of endpoints, for each interface and endpoint type, and then add that information to the usb_device_id structure and common macros, and then touch all users of those macros, might be a bit too much work to do here... :) thanks, greg k-h -- 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
