Hello, On 2011-07-26 12:43 +02:00 Feilpe Balbi wrote: > > I will not accept new gadget drivers which don't adhere to composite, > sorry :-( > That's understandable. I am working on rewriting it into a composite. > > I'm not sure this should be in kernel. Have you tried gadgetfs ? There are other gadgets in the mainline kernel which also need cooperation from userspace. 1. g_file_storage - ideologically very close to dfu 2. hid gadget - a character device is required to get input from userspace 3. uvc - not only does it require data input from user space, but also requires setting up a userspace daemon for operation. So why not have dfu? It requires only a moderate interaction from userspace - a module parameter (if it can be considered userspace at all) and an entry in sysfs for each entity, which in a typical case will probably be very few. DFU is a standard protocol. If, for example, a simple embedded device is to be designed then having dfu at hand in kernel makes it a readily available solution - the received data can be stored e.g. in /tmp. Then the device's business logic need not concern itself with the internals of gadgetfs/functionfs; it just needs to use a regular file to complete its operation. DFU usage is easy on the host side as well - there are readily available tools like dfu-util, so enabling it in kernel can make it become popular. Andrzej -- 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
