On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 6:34 PM, Wander Lairson Costa <wander.lair...@gmail.com> wrote: > I observed that benchmark firmware always expects isochronous transfer > of a size multiple of packet size. Is this just a convention on the > firmware or is there something about isochronous that I am missing > out?
Not that sure, I still consider isochronous transfer to be a bit difficult to understand and difficult to get it right. The following MSDN entry seems to infer that should be the case but it is not explicit. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/hh406225(v=vs.85).aspx And the following MSDN entry seems to indicate it is okay for a device to send the host driver a packet smaller than the maximum packet size indicated in the device's endpoint if the client driver sets USBD_SHORT_TRANSFER_OK flag. But it does not mention whether that applies to ISOC endpoind or not. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff538112(v=vs.85).aspx -- Xiaofan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Master Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL, ASP.NET, C# 2012, HTML5, CSS, MVC, Windows 8 Apps, JavaScript and much more. Keep your skills current with LearnDevNow - 3,200 step-by-step video tutorials by Microsoft MVPs and experts. ON SALE this month only -- learn more at: http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnnow-d2d _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
