Josua Dietze schrieb: > Frank Schaefer schrieb: > >> I really think the mode-switching should be done in the kernel and not >> in user-space for reasons of usability. > > What is wrong with an udev rule entry? By the way, did the "eject" > command line tool work as well? It returns an error but the device is ejected. But do you really want the users to open a terminal window and call "eject" each time they plug their device in ;) ? >> It also doesn't "pollute" the driver with much code (adds a single >> usb_bulk_msg()). > > That may be true for a single device but there are around 30+ others > which are switched outside the kernel, some inside usb-storage, and > this would add even more places where mode switching happened. Of course I like the idea of having all mode-switches at the same place, but we learnt from discussions in the past that there will likely never be a unified solution for all devices. Devices are to different. Some disconnect and change their IDs and others only change their interface-setup. In addition to that it depends on the purpose/type of the two devices. In this case, the only purpose of the storage device is to provide windows-drivers for installation. When the driver is installed, the storage-device should not appear any more. >> Another benfit is that it binds the mode-switching to the driver. If the >> driver is blacklisted/not used, there will be no mode-switching. > > But how would you access the storage part of the device then? > > Josua Never, that's the compromise we have to make. But we can really make it, simply because we will never need it. Please let me know if there is a possibility to "keep" the usb-mass-storage-driver as "fallback-driver". Frank -- 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
