On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 12:32 AM, Felipe Balbi <felipe.balbi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 02:47:54PM +0100, ext Peter Korsgaard wrote: >> >> Felipe> if You look at my reply to Rupesh, I guess you would be able to use >> Felipe> the same character device glue to implement a f_hid.c and put a >> Felipe> userland daemon handling the data. How about that ? >> >> Sure, that could work, but what's the deeper reason for not using >> gadgetfs now we have it? > > 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. Just to get some more insights, in case of MTP with more activity happening on userland ( like DRM, database) will it be more beneficial to keep things in userland ? > -- > balbi > -- > 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 -- 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
