On Wed, 6 Jun 2012, Stefani Seibold wrote: > The reason to fix the skeleton driver was about the complains for my > NRPZ driver, which was based on the design of the usb skeleton driver. > > > Going even farther, I'm not so sure it's a good idea for usb-skeleton > > to try supporting both synchronous and asynchronous accesses. This > > adds a layer of complexity that people just don't need. IMO it would > > be better to have two separate example drivers, an easy one that is > > purely synchronous and a more advanced one that is purely async. > > > > Agree, i think this would be a good idea to have to separate drivers. > Both should be also working drivers, for really simple hardware. > > The best way for me to do this is to shrink later this to a simplified > driver. That makes sense. Will you do it? > I think it is important to have a clean and working example. It would > save a lot of time for everybody and shrinks the number of round trips. How can you tell that it works? By testing your NRPZ driver? Alan Stern -- 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
