On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > with gadgetfs, userland would have to implement also usb descriptors which > makes the code a little less portable (not so true if you put usb-specific > code on its own file, but anyways). Using gadgetfs also has a little > performance penalty, I guess. > But what is the reason it(gadgetfs) is not being considered to get converted into composite framework ? As I mention earlier kernel documentation about Gadget API says :- "At this writing, a few of the current gadget drivers have been converted to this framework. Near-term plans include converting all of them, except for “gadgetfs" Are the performance and avoiding userland only reasons ? or any other bottleneck/design issues exist to convert gadgetfs into composite framework? -- Regards, Rupesh Gujare -- 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
