Re: [linux-usb-devel] [RFC] HID bus design overview.

From: Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>
To: Li Yu <raise.sail@gmail.com>
Cc: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@insightbb.com>,
	yanghong@ccoss.com.cn,
	linux-usb-devel <linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	hongzhiyi@ccoss.com.cn, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
	Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [RFC] HID bus design overview.
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 00:42:10 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070402074210.GA25320@kroah.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4610ABB1.3080606@gmail.com>

On Mon, Apr 02, 2007 at 03:07:29PM +0800, Li Yu wrote:
> 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" ?

You have to create some kind of userspace program to disconnect the
device from the hid driver, and bind it to the new driver, for every new
device/driver that comes along.

Yes, you can do this, but the blacklist is simpler and easier.

thanks,

greg k-h