On Sunday, March 13, 2011, Andy Green wrote: > On 03/13/2011 01:03 AM, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > > >>> Using device paths for this purpose seems to be very fragile to me. Isn't > >>> there any better solution? > >> > >> Given that this targets board definition files which commonly do the > >> platform_add_device for the USB bus controller synchronously, and > >> the bus-connected devices it is aimed at are soldered on to the > >> board connected to specific bus controllers, the bus paths are > >> completely deterministic. > > > > No they are not. > > > > The physical layout is deterministic, but the bus number, and device > > number, is not. You are using the bus number here in this path, so that > > is not going to work, sorry. > > Okay. This is not a PC we are talking about. > > If the platform / board definition file is registering the USB hosts > synchronously at boot time, the driver is composed into the monolithic > kernel, there are no PCI busses or whatever on the SoC, the bus indexing > is totally deterministic. This is extremely common in the platform / > SoC case and is the case the patchset is targeted at. Even further, the > only time you'd use it is to reach a USB asset that is wired up the same > board permanently as well. > > Anyway this seems moot by now. However, if you add a new infrastructure like this, it should be at least usable on systems that you description doesn't apply to. Thanks, Rafael -- 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
