On Sat, Nov 02, 2002, Dan Streetman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Nov 2002, Johannes Erdfelt wrote: > > >Is the USB get configuration control message (section 9.4.2) and get > >interface control message (section 9.4.4) not good enough? > > aha! I never read those close enough, always assumed they got the > descriptors. there is a slight problem with the get_interface though, > since it's recipient is an interface, the driver would have to claim that > interface first, so it's not possible to directly ask devices with > drivers what their active alternate setting is.
Ahh, yes. You are correct. I overlooked that restriction. GET_CONFIGURATION should be fine at least. > might be good to add a * by the active interface setting in the devices > file, as Greg mentioned... Yeah, that's a good idea to visually identify the alternate setting being used. > >The only reason we need a SETCONFIGURATION and SETINTERFACE calls is > >because the core maintains some state and changing it behind it's back > >is not nice. > > I noticed that too, it might be good to add either checking in usbdevfs > (to prevent set-config/set-interface calls directly) or checking in the > usb core to watch for set-config/set-interface calls... We'd have to protect a couple of others too, like SET_ADDRESS and possibly SET_DESCRIPTOR (still don't know the usefulness of that one). JE ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by: See the NEW Palm Tungsten T handheld. Power & Color in a compact size! http://ads.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/redirect.pl?palm0001en _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
