RE: [PATCH 1/2] usb: gadget: udc-core: independent registration of gadgets and gadget drivers
From: Alan Stern
Date: Mon Feb 09 2015 - 15:00:20 EST
On Mon, 9 Feb 2015, Krzysztof Opasiak wrote:
> > Why bother matching by name? Why not simply take the first
> > available
> > UDC?
> Because you may have more than one udc. This would allow to pick one by
> name just like using configfs interface.
Clearly it would be more flexible to allow the user to do the matching,
the way configfs does (sysfs too).
> > > Main feature of my path is not only deferred binding of gadget
> > driver,
> > > but also possibility to register/unregister udc at any time.
> > > This is useful for user who can load, for example, udc module
> > > if needed and unload it safely, not touching gadget driver.
> > We can already do that with the existing code. There's no need for
> > a
> > patch.
> > Also, it's not clear that the existing gadget drivers will work
> > properly if they are unbound from one UDC and then bound again to
> > another one. They were not written with that sort of thing in
> > mind.
> What you have described is one of basics configfs features.
> You should be able to bind and unbind your gadget whenever you want
> and it should work properly after doing:
> ## create gadget
> $ echo "udc.0" > UDC
> $ echo "" > UDC
> $ echo "udc.1" > UDC
> Function shouldn't care which udc it has been bound previously.
> Only current one is important and on each unbind each function
> should cleanup its state and prepare to be bound to another udc.
> Configfs interface doesn't prohibit this and I haven't seen any
> info about such restriction.
It's not prohibited, but it also was never required. Therefore it may
not be implemented in all gadget drivers.
> If some function is not working in
> such situation there is a bug in that function and it should be fixed.
That's fine. I wasn't pointing out a fundamental limitation, just a
fact that will have to be taken into account.
Anyway, instead of going through all this, why not do what I suggested
earlier (see http://marc.info/?l=linux-usb&m=139888691230119&w=2) and
create a "gadget" bus type? That would give userspace explicit control
over which gadget driver was bound to which UDC.
Or maybe that's not a very good fit with the existing code, since most
gadget drivers assume they will be bound to only one UDC at a time. So
instead, why not create a sysfs interface that allows userspace to
control which gadget drivers are bound to which UDCs?
As I recall, the original problem people were complaining about was
deferred probing. They didn't need fancy matching; all they wanted was
the ability to bind a gadget driver to a UDC some time after the gadget
driver was loaded and initialized. Something simple like Robert
Baldyga's patch is enough to do that.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/