On Mon, 9 Dec 2002, Rui Saraiva wrote: | On Sun, 8 Dec 2002, Matthew Dharm wrote: | | > BCD is nybble-oriented, not byte oriented. Look at the example you quoted: | > 2.10 is 0x0210, not 0x020a (as your suggestion would have it). | | As I quoted, the format is OxJJMN, JJ is the major, M the minor and N the | sub version. In that example 0x0210, JJ=0x02, M=0x1, N=0x0, which is 2.10. | | The USB specification makes distinction between minor and sub versions, | which might imply an packed BCD format (two BCD numbers in one byte). | Also, 0xa isn't a valid BCD number, only 0x0 to 0x9 are. | | This document - | http://www.usb.org/developers/data/devclass/ccsVersioning1_0.pdf - Section | 5.1 states: | | Offset Field Size Value Description | | 2 bcdFeatureVersion 2 BCD A BCD value that encodes | the revision of the CSS | Feature as 4 BCD digits | where the decimal point is | between the 2nd and 3rd | digits. | | The provided example (0x0210) is misleading...
Yes, and the USB 2.0 spec gets it wrong in at least 1 place. I agree with the patch. -- ~Randy ------------------------------------------------------- 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
