[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0704021126280.3808@jikos.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 11:34:07 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>
To: Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...ightbb.com>, yanghong@...ss.com.cn,
linux-usb-devel <linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
hongzhiyi@...ss.com.cn, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [RFC] HID bus design overview.
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007, Li Yu wrote:
> Hi, I do not think that using blacklist in base driver for this purpose
> is good idea. If so, we need modify source when each new HID device
> driver come, that's so ugly.
Hi Li,
well, the drivers are exceptions from the generic handling, so creating an
exceptional rule (entry in hid_blacklist) for them is not that bad. OK,
it's not the nicest thing on earth probably, but serves the purpose in
current vendors-trying-to-break-hardware-in-the-most-original-way world
quite well.
This is going to cause some headache to out-of-tree drivers. Oh well, do
we care that much?
In your scenario you'll still need a way how to unbind the device from the
hid driver and bind it to the new specific device, won't you?. This could
be done by a separate userspace program, but well ... I think just
blacklisting the hardware is much cleaner, than needing to ship a separate
userspace program along with the driver.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists