On Mon, 13 Jun 2011 18:30:09 +0200, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2011, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > The same could've been done for g_file_storage :-)
>
> It essentially _was_ done; the result was g_mass_storage. The two
> drivers are almost but not quite entirely the same (apart from use of
> the composite framework).
I see, the problem now is that we have two drivers doing somewhat the
same thing and while the ARM people already got bashed because of "not
sharing enough code" we have duplicate drivers on the gadget framework
:-)
Yeah, it's a mess. I don't know what would be best.
With all due respect Alan, I think that in the long run we should get
rid of g_file_storage. Your request not to delete it when I introduced
g_mass_storage was a good one as it in fact turned out that
g_mass_storage introduced a few bugs, but as g_mass_storage matures
I think there is no need for g_file_storage. And I'm not saying the
moment is now.
As far as I know, the external behaviour of the two gadgets is identical
(with exception of removable having different default value which in
retrospect I consider a bad think to do and I'm not even sure why I did
it) so it should not be a problem for users of g_file_storage.
--
Best regards, _ _
.o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o
..o | Computer Science, Michal "mina86" Nazarewicz (o o)
ooo +-----<email/xmpp: mnazarewicz@xxxxxxxxxx>-----ooO--(_)--Ooo--
--
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
