Hi, On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:55:16AM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > >On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:51:03AM +0200, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > >>On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:32:20 +0200, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > >>>such a framework won't work for Certification. The original composite > >>>framework that I implemented with the guidance of Dave was doing > >>exactly > >>>that. Each function driver was a module of its own and you built > >>>composite gadgets by loading the different drivers. > >>> > >>>That was until Dave explained to me why it wouldn't fly. You can't have > >>>completely dynamic USB peripherals. If you go to certification with > >>>something like that, you will be denied certification as your > >>device can > >>>change how it appears to the bus at any time. > >> > >>Not if changing configuration meant disconnect/connect cycle. I think > >>that's what happens in Android if you enable/disable ADB. Of course, > >>Android's composite is pretty much linked together. > > On Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:52:11 +0200, Felipe Balbi <balbi@xxxxxx> wrote: > >still not good. We are not making function drivers modules. > > Kk. Just bringing an idea. ;) heh, it's just that you still have the possibility of a user turn on the device with the USB cable already attached, right ? Then this whole idea falls appart ;-) -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
