On 13/06/12 13:59, Xiaofan Chen wrote: > On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Toby Gray<toby.g...@realvnc.com> wrote: >> Sorry, my email client decided to send that email as HTML. >> >> Here is the contents as plain text: >> >> >> On 13/06/12 11:13, Toby Gray wrote: >>> The attached patch fixes this by allowing the SET_CONFIGURATION message to >>> be sent on the bus if it matches the currently active configuration. >>> >>> Would this be a change considered for inclusion in v1.0.13 of libusbx? Or >>> is there a reason for the current behavior, other than just avoiding >>> unnecessary bus activity? > I believe one of the reason is that some device chock on this request. > > On the other hand, I think your patch is not necessary. If the > SET_CONFIGURATION control request is really desired for > your device, you can do that with the explicit control request.
I tried that when I didn't see a SET_CONFIGURATION on the bus when using libusb_set_configuration. This didn't work though as windows_set_configuration is just doing exactly the same. The check that this patch modifies is inside winusb_submit_control_transfer, which means that both libusb_set_configuration and submitting control transfers trigger it. I'd be happy to submit a patch which made windows_set_configuration return success with on bus activity but allowed an explicit libusb_control_transfer for the same configuration to go onto the bus. Would that be preferable? Regards, Toby ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
