>> > However, I don't think BW can be calculated effectively by common code, it >> > is dependent on the HCD. >> >>That's how it behaves already, with the different HCDs putting more >>or less work into their scheduling policy. > > > That's how it is done now, but since the original code was the same > across all HCD's, I don't see why it should differ between HCD's.
Because the HCDs do scheduling differently. UHCI can significantly undercommit periodic bandwidth, and does no balancing. OHCI does balancing, so it does a lot less undercommitting. EHCI doesn't do much periodic scheduling yet; drivers haven't needed it, and anyway its problem is about ten times harder because of split transactions. > USB 1.1 is the same across all HCD's. The only thing I can think of that > would differ is what frames interrupt URB's get scheduled into. Example, the balancing that OHCI does to even out loads. (Which applies equally to iso transfers -- they don't need to run every frame, though they often seem to.) > Regardless, this isn't a big deal. If it's the same, put it into the > core, if it isn't, put it into the HCD's. > > JE > > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
