On 03.04.23 16:33, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, Apr 03, 2023 at 10:54:05AM +0200, Oliver Neukum wrote:
On 30.03.23 17:34, Alan Stern wrote:
If so, why do we have a generic matching code, although
it is always insufficient?
(I assume you're referring to usb_match_device() and related routines.)
Not sufficient, perhaps, but necessary. That is, in addition to
checking the available endpoints, we also have to make sure the device
has the right vendor ID, product ID, and so on to match the driver.
The thing is that if we also need to check in each driver, the criteria
for matching devices are not sophisticated and strict enough
What is the purpose of a generic binding interface in sysfs if every probe()
method blocks it? Allowing a generic probe looks like a misdesign under these
circumstances. You'd really want to add IDs to drivers.
I really don't understand what you're asking. If you're talking about
the "bind" and "unbind" files in /sys/bus/*/drivers/*/, they are there
Yes
to allow manual binding and unbinding of devices. Even though only one
driver is likely to bind to any particular device. (Furthermore, all
They, however, allow binding drivers to arbitrary devices.
Now, you can argue that this will not work. Then I'd say that the correct interface
would be per device, not per driver as it is now and would retrigger
a binding, as if the device were new.
Or you say that if the administrator wants that, well, shoot
yourself into the foot, the driver shall not check.
this was true even before we started being careful about checking
endpoints numbers and types.)
And we _do_ have IDs in drivers; that's what the .id_table member of
struct usb_driver is for.
Which is not exported through sysfs.
So we export an interface that is not fully usable, not the one people
really want. You almost never want to say that a device at a specific
port is to be bound to a driver at one specific time.
You want to either assign all devices with a new ID to a driver
or unbind and reprobe a device.
Regards
Oliver
