On Thu, Jan 24 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hmm, looks like there's no easy way out. Can we (easily) make > a compatibility layer between the two ? What are the biggest > differences? The biggest difference is that gadgetfs application handles all setup requests whereas with functionfs most of them are handled by composite layer. One of the consequence is that functionfs applications have to provide all the descriptors and strings up front, whereas gadgetfs applications only need to handle setup requests. A compatibility layer would have to send fake requests to gadgetfs application to get all that information and once received register with composite framework. This could even provide all the functionality as long as we ignore any unhealthy cases where a gadgetfs application replies to the same setup request differently depending on some internal state (dunno how conferment such behaviour would be with USB spec). However, I feel it's a lot of work with little (if any) benefit and that's why I didn't do that in the first place when functionfs was created. -- Best regards, _ _ .o. | Liege of Serenely Enlightened Majesty of o' \,=./ `o ..o | Computer Science, Michał “mina86” Nazarewicz (o o) ooo +----<email/xmpp: mpn@xxxxxxxxxx>--------------ooO--(_)--Ooo--
Attachment:
pgpRE6cOM1H6H.pgp
Description: PGP signature
