On Wed, 22 Dec 2004, Philipp Schmid wrote:
> What I mean by better results is that as mentioned I observe PTS needing to > be resubmitted repeatedly. When handling SOF and ATL interrupts, I've > observed 3 cases: > > (1) PTDs are resubmitted multiple times but get handled eventually before > USB timeout mechanisms kick in (OK, I guess) > (2) PTDs are resubmitted multiple times but get handled eventually after USB > timeout mechanisms kick in (not good as OHCI then shuts down the offending > endpoint) > (3) PTDs never seem to get handled (I've added some support to detect this > case and pass the offending PTD back as device not responding to avoid > hanging driver, but this shouldn't happen in the first place) > > When switching to SOF handling, I have not yet observed (2) or (3). I > agree, it should not matter which way this is done. In fact handling the Isn't it possible that every now and then an interrupt is missed. Missing a SOFint ain't a problem as the next one comes soon and the buffer gets processed. In contrast, missing an ATL interrupt may leave the buffer full until some other interrupt kicks in or new TD's are submitted. Olav ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/ _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
