> On 6 Sep 2025, at 10:07, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 06, 2025 at 09:41:16AM -0300, Daniel Almeida wrote: >> >> >>>> >>>> I thought that an iterative approach would work here, i.e.: merge this, then >>>> URBs, then more stuff, etc. >>> >>> Ah, that makes sense, I didn't realize you want that here. What USB >>> device do you want to write a rust driver for? Are you going to need >>> bindings to the usb major number, or is it going to talk to some other >>> subsystem instead? >>> >>> Right now, these bindings don't really do anything USB specific at all >>> except allow a driver to bind to a device. >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> greg k-h >> >> To be honest, I'm trying to pave the way for others. >> >> I often hear people saying that they would look into Rust drivers if only they >> did not have to write all the surrounding infrastructure themselves. On the >> other hand, there is no infrastructure because there are no drivers. It's a >> chicken and egg problem that I am trying to solve. > > Sure, but a framework like this (probe/disconnect), really isn't USB, > it's just driver core stuff :) > >> It's also a cool opportunity to learn about USB, but I don't have any plans >> for a driver at the moment other than a instructional sample driver in Rust. > > Then let's not add bindings without a real user please. We don't want > to maintain them for no good reason. > That’s OK Greg, I totally see your point here. I guess we can shelve this work for the time being then. To everybody else: if anyone is willing to write USB drivers, let me know. I will work with you to get the abstractions in place so that we have both the abstractions and a real user. -- Daniel
