From: Pete B. <pb...@gm...> - 2011-06-30 21:26:53
|
On 2011.06.30 18:43, Tim Roberts wrote: > Well, this has been abused from the start. The "USB" install class is > supposed to be used only by host controllers and hubs. Generic USB > devices are not supposed to be placed here. A generic USB device that > does not fit into another install class should be inventing its OWN > install class. Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, note that I may be abusing the "class" terminology to designate what Microsoft seems to call "symbolic PnP names" as per [1]. From looking at the inf used by Renesas, as well as what's occuring in setupapidev.log, it appears that one can use an install class (?) such as "NUSB3" while still having the device listed under the symbolic PnP name "USB". My concern is only with the symbolic name. Anyway, what would be the advantage of having every generic USB device use their own install class? If we're talking about the symbolic name, I see a lot of headaches from not being able to easily list all USB devices in one place, including driverless ones. Especially, this would make a Windows driver installer library, such as libwdi, a lot more difficult to write as driverless devices would not have an install class to be listed under... Regards, /Pete [1] http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff551069%28v=vs.85%29.aspx |