On Friday 14 January 2005 8:28 am, Alan Stern wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, David Brownell wrote: > > > 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.
OK. > > 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? No, that was it. - Dave ------------------------------------------------------- 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
