On 11/20/2012 11:53 PM, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
* Felipe Balbi | 2012-11-20 14:14:47 [+0200]:
would that work ?
Assume you get through with removal of module paramters. Do we end up
with two interfaces then? One for configfs and one for sysfs?
If anyone cares about my opinion, I don't think that's a good idea. It
will actually lead to three interfaces: new and shiny configfs, somehow
new sysfs and deprecated and no longer supported module parameters.
This will just add to confusion and user frustration.
I think we should switch directly to configfs and provide some
reasonable backward-compatibility via tiny modules which effectively
load the configfs gadget and configure it simulating the old module
parameter behaviour (and for some gadgets like those using
f_mass_storage provide interfaces in sysfs if that is deemed feasible to
maintain).
So you say "keep the patch as it with this module-parameter
compatibility"?
Sebastian
--
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
