Re: USB "null modem" cables and related Linux driver questions
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 04:56:32AM -0500, Richard Owlett wrote:
[...]
> >>Pointers to good references and/or better search terms?
> >
> >"ppp over usb" gave me http://www.linux-usb.org/usbnet/
> >which might be what you want. I notice that such a module is
> >in the production kernels.
>
> I had seen the page. It told me that I was not pursuing an
> impossibility. I was hoping for a more recent reference than 2005.
Perhaps this helps you in your research.
As you've found out by now, USB is an asymmetric protocol: each
network has a "boss" and the rest are all subordinates (perhaps
this design reflects the organization structures in the involved
companies [1], but I disgress).
Of course, some folks always wanted to connect two devices with
enough "personality" that they both wanted to be masters.
The one choice you have is that one of both sides takes a step
back and plays "gadget" (the jargon term, somewhat unfortunate
as search engine fodder). There seems to be something out there
for that, e.g. [2].
The other choice seems to be USB On The Go (aka "OTG") [3]. You
seem to need a special cable for that.
There seem to be Linux drivers to let the USB "stack" play along
with OTG [4], but I have no experience whatsoever with this
Now you have some terms to feed your favourite search engine
(hopefully not The Goog, but I disgress again ;)
Cheers
[1] There's a name for this: Conway's law
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conway%27s_law)
And those companies? Well, Compaq, DEC, IBM, Intel, Microsoft,
NEC, and Nortel. 'Nuff said ;-)
[2] https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/driver-api/usb/gadget.html
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_On-The-Go
[4] https://superuser.com/questions/1051005/how-to-determine-usb-otg-mode-on-linux
- -- tomás
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlsRHqoACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbxUACfXme58t35ex5dp//jujQ+B6gW
3P0AnjAI00iMA2A+n8wd1OLtRbftYmKJ
=Hhee
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: