----- Original Message ----- From: "Philippe Houdoin" <philippe.houdoin@xxxxxxx> To: <openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 8:24 AM Subject: [openbeos] Re: Add-ons/Module problems/ideas?? > François wrote: > > However I've been wondering about issues like rescanning, but I still want to > > see how usb mosules deals with this before complaining =) > > The way "usbd" module ask devfs to reload the driver who register him > wanting being notified when some specified USB device(s) appear or disapper > on USB bus is unknown, that's right. #include <unistd.h> #include <fcntl.h> #include <string.h> int main(int argc, char **argv) { for(int i= 1; i< argc; i++) { int h= open("/dev", O_RDWR, 000); write(h, argv[i], strlen(argv[i])); close(h); } return 0; } // You are welcome, manuel, PS: maybe there is some typo, but you get the idea. > In fact, the USBD way of doing was said to be a prototype of a new, more > dynamic, driver API by Be Inc. engineer in some BNewsletter (can't find > it now, sorry). We'll have to look at this issue, but Michael Phibbs > don't plan binary compatibility with USB drivers, or did I miss something > here? > > > Wondering also if we need to keep modules from publishing devfs entries > > and leave that to drivers, or we could allow both. > > While it could bemore flexible, it could also become a real mess faster :) > > Well, nothing prevent one binary image to export both driver API > ("init_driver", "publish_devices", etc) and kernel module(s) API > ("modules" data symbol). > > If a kernel module need to publish a /dev/* entry, why it's not a > *driver* instead? > If some part of his code need to be (re)used by another driver(s), > let's split it into a module and a driver (even in the same binary > file!)... it's a the purpose of kernel modules, in fact. > > -Philippe