Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:27:03 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org, usb@freebsd.org, Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org>, Maksim Yevmenkin <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com>, Garrett Cooper <yanefbsd@gmail.com>, Gavin Atkinson <gavin@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: HEADSUP usb2/usb4bsd to become default in GENERIC Message-ID: <200902090927.04378.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <7d6fde3d0902081940o3ffd8ea1m6f59d65ee59d57ff@mail.gmail.com> References: <20090206045349.GQ78804@elvis.mu.org> <bb4a86c70902081917r7085e867r776606c52f3d9d8c@mail.gmail.com> <7d6fde3d0902081940o3ffd8ea1m6f59d65ee59d57ff@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 09 February 2009, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Maksim Yevmenkin > > <maksim.yevmenkin@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Sam Leffler <sam@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > > [...] > > > >>>>>> - Update GENERIC to use usb2 device names. > >>>>> > >>>>> Wasn't there a plan to rename usb2 devices to match oldusb names > >>>>> (where applicable) once oldusb had been killed? I don't see it in t= he > >>>>> list. > >>>> > >>>> Probably, although coming from the other side as a user I find it > >>>> pretty annoying when there's somewhat gratuitous changes to the kern= el > >>>> config files that I don't really care about that cause my kernels to > >>>> break. > >>> > >>> The vast majority of our users do not run -CURRENT, and so haven't had > >>> to change config files yet. > >>> > >>> One day, those users will be migrating from 7.x to 8.x, and shouldn't > >>> need to change their kernel config for a "somewhat gratuitous change". > >>> > >>> Your argument only works if people had already had to change their > >>> config files once (usb -> usb2), and that by renaming these back they > >>> will have to change their kernel config back. Only people running > >>> -CURRENT will end up having to do this twice (or indeed at all) if the > >>> rename takes place, end users will not need to do it at all. > >>> > >>>> Basically, calling it usb2 isn't as bad as renaming it back to "usb" > >>>> as it's less disruptive in my book. > >>> > >>> Again, I disagree. > >> > >> I agree with your comments. And, as I've said previously, any name > >> changes from usb1 will require _all_ documentation (manual pages, > >> handbook, etc) to change; not a good idea. > > > > i second that. i would really like to see old module names to be > > preserved as much as possible. > > > > thanks, > > max > > In some cases I find the new module names to be more intuitive > (uplcom -> usb2_serial_plcom), but I find having to add the additional > modules required for USB4BSD (usb2_core, etc) to be a bit more > annoying. > Also, there's an issue with the example USB2 kernel config -- you > need to have double-quotes around the include file otherwise config > says `syntax error' and pukes. How about symlinking the old module names with the new ones? And the same in the kernel, so that device uplcom Is equivalent to device usb2_serial_plcom =46rom what I understand the "conf/files" syntax allows this. Not sure abou= t=20 KMODs, if there is a LINK option. =2D-HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200902090927.04378.hselasky>