Re: Flames over -- Re: Which is simpler?

[David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>]

On Wednesday 15 February 2006 3:43 pm, Pavel Machek wrote:
> 
> > Are you quite certain about that?  This is not 
> > the case for SCSI disks, but for USB, maybe it 
> > can provide sufficient information to the 
> > kernel about state changes without having to do 
> > a full rescan.  If that is the case, and the 
> > hardware is erroneously reporting that all 

Hardware is CORRECTLY reporting electrical disconnects,
but Philip is wanting Linux to ignore those reports.


> > devices were disconnected and reconnected after 
> > an ACPI suspend to disk, then such hardware is 
> > broken and the kernel should be patched to work 
> > around it. 
> 
> No patch was attached...

No patch possible.  Reading the other messages in that
thread, Philip is advocating Linux ignore the USB spec.
(Which is what _he_ appears to have been doing...)

What he has to do is more than submit a patch.  He first
needs to lobby the USB-IF to change the USB spec, and
get every peripheral vendor to stop shipping USB devices
and instead switch over to "Philip-USB".  Then get all
the billions of USB peripherals to go into the recycle
bin and be replaced with products conforming to his
new variant.  It all seems highly unlikely.  ;)


But yes, you're right ... if he's serious about
changing all that stuff, he also needs stop being a
member of the "never submitted a USB patch" club.
Ideally, starting with small things.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/