[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4610ABB1.3080606@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:07:29 +0800
From: Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@...ightbb.com>
CC: Li Yu <raise.sail@...il.com>, yanghong@...ss.com.cn,
linux-usb-devel <linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
hongzhiyi@...ss.com.cn, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [RFC] HID bus design overview.
Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
>
> No, please don't do that. As soon as there is a special driver written
> for a device that device's VID/PID should be added to generic HID
> blacklist. This way udev will load the proper driver right away and
> there will not be any flip-flopping of input devices.
>
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. I think the blacklist only should be used
for those really broken/buggy hardware, not for these normal hardware
with extended feature.
Er, I also want to know what are drawbacks of "flip-flopping" ?
>
>
>> When user A remove this shadow driver, the USB/base driver should resume
>> work for this joystick, IOW, it should register back its input device again.
>>
>>
>
> Why would we want to revert to using generic HID's implementation if we
> know that it is broken for that particular device???
>
>
Well, many devices just only can not play its full feature, not broken.
so base driver still can work for us.
-
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