On Wed, 29 Apr 2009, Greg KH wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 12:07:37PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 05:23, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 08:11:32AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > >> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 02:50:07PM +0200, Kay Sievers wrote: > > >> > What about moving the endpoints to the "usb" bus instead of its own > > >> > weird class? I don't really know why there is an enpoint class at all, > > >> > and what makes them different from usb-devices or usb-interfaces? The > > >> > endpoints are part of the core just like the interfaces are, right? > > >> > > > >> > Can't we just have them as: > > >> > /devices/pci.../usb4/4-0:1.0/4-0:1.0_ep81 > > >> > instead of: > > >> > /devices/pci.../usb4/4-0:1.0/usb_endpoint/usbdev4.1_ep81 > > >> > > > >> > The usbdevX.Y* name is not used anywhere else. > > >> > > >> Yeah, I'll go change that as well. I have a 4 hour phone meeting today, > > >> so I should have plenty of time for things like this :) > > > > > > Hm, in looking at these, we want that information in sysfs (endpoint > > > descriptor info), and want the device nodes someday. > > > > > > So I'll just leave them for now. > > > > Sure we want, but we want them as: > > /sys/bus/usb/devices/4-0:1.0_ep81/ > > I think. And not as a separate class with these weird usbdev* device names? > > As a "real" usb device? Hm, ok, I can do that, seems a bit odd, but if > you are happy with it... :) Is that really what Kay wanted? It's not quite the same as what he wrote earlier. I don't see any point in putting endpoints on the usb bus. They might as well remain "busless", if at all possible. So we would have /sys/bus/usb/devices/4-0:1.0/4-0:1.0_ep81/ or even just /sys/bus/usb/devices/4-0:1.0/ep81/ but not /sys/bus/usb/devices/4-0:1.0_ep81/ 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
