On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 11:23:52PM +0530, Rupesh Gujare wrote: > 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? I think just because no one has done the work to try this. Please feel free to send patches :) thanks, greg k-h -- 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
