Hi,
Dan Williams:
> > One comment about the implementation: Please use a table-driven
> > approach. We need that for some other enhancements that are planned for
> > the option driver anyway (for instance: URB sizes need to be adapted to
> > the device).
>
> You mean like adding something to the usb device table driver data
> pointer?
>
Right. That'd point to a struct with a couple of well-defined fields;
the relevant information would be collected all in one place; no need to
scatter multiple tests (as I said, this is not the only use case for a
struct like that in the Option driver) for multiple manufacturers/devices
throughout the code.
--
Matthias Urlichs | {M:U} IT Design @ m-u-it.de | smurf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Disclaimer: The quote was selected randomly. Really. | http://smurf.noris.de
v4sw7$Yhw6+8ln7ma7u7L!wl7DUi2e6t3TMWb8HAGen6g3a4s6Mr1p-3/-6 hackerkey.com
- -
Time to go home and write mom a nice long letter.
--
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
