Re: Multiple bulk vs. control URBs submission question
Martin Drab <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.usb.devel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:47:10 +0100 (CET), Martin Drab <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OK, good to know that at least on the Linux side this should be supported. > > I read some comments on the net (probably describing some ancient version > > of kernel or what), where there were some hints like that it may not be > > supported. So I wasn't sure whether recent kernels are capable of it. Good > > to know they are. > > 2.4 has special workarounds to allow it, but it's really ancient > in 2007. For example, Red Hat shipped the last 2.4 based system > five years ago. Yes, I thought it was just for ancient kernels, but I just wanted to be sure the feature is supported (on recent 2.6 kernels) before starting to dig for the bug. > > After it gets stuck, when I switch off the device, all the scheduled URBs > > return with -EPROTO error. > > But this is a good thing, isn't it? It happens because your device > stopped replying to tokens while still attached to its hub port. > It's not the same as the disconnect, which ends with different > error code. Although perhaps I'm confused here. No, you're absolutely correct. And unless the USB device controller chip is buggy, it's most probably a bug in my driver or firmware that I'd have to find. Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel