Re: fpusb vs. usbfs2
Daniel Drake <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel,gmane.linux.usb.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Sarah Sharp wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Have you looked at usbfs2? It sounds like usbfs2 and fpusb have some similar > goals, although I admit I only glanced briefly at your wiki. > > http://wiki.cs.pdx.edu/usb/usbfs2.html We already spoke briefly in private email. I haven't looked at the code yet. I may be wrong, but I feel that a userspace library to access usbfs2 will still be useful, to simplify certain concepts and reduce duplication. Also, I'm hoping that my library will provide portability to other O/S's in the future, like has been done with libusb. It will also act as a way of hiding the differences between usbfs and usbfs2 from the application developer, by providing the same API to do the same thing over both. One of my personal goals is to provide a fd-oriented async interface to applications, so that those applications can learn when the library has something to do (i.e. iteration function needs to be called) by polling some file descriptors. This is possible with usbfs as you can select() on the existing nodes for URB completion. I'm not sure how this fits into the usbfs2 scheme of things as I haven't yet read up on the AIO stuff you pointed me to. I do like the design goals of usbfs2 and do plan to use it within fpusb when it comes available - and presumably it is possible to get pollable file descriptors which describe AIO completion. Thanks, Daniel ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel