On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, David Brownell wrote: > On Thursday 13 January 2005 10:04 am, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > Okay, here's a patch that looks pretty good to me. The only thing I'm not > > sure about is that it may retry _too_ aggressively. If you like it I'll > > submit it to Greg. > > Looks OK to me too, except that if all the first three tries fail it > still goes ahead and uses a bogus ep0 maxpacket size. (Maybe it should > just go right to the other scheme?)
No, you misread the patch. If all three attempts at the 64-byte GET-DESCRIPTOR fail then r is nonzero, so the test at the bottom of the patch catches it. The code then jumps to the next iteration of the outer loop, which will either attempt to redo the current scheme or will proceed to try the other scheme. > Also, the changelog should highlight the switch to a more accommodating > scheme for enumeration. (Probably worth doing that in a separate patch.) Okay, I'll separate that out. Any other comments? Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
