On Sun, Jun 18, 2000, Brad Hards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Dunlap, Randy" wrote:
> > Gosh, even USB 2.0 still only allows 127 devices (per
> > bus/controller). Why the 255?
>
> Not A Clue (tm). I can only guess that either:
> A. the committee had some idea that you could have lots of ports on a
> single huge hub (wiring the house?), and you just move devices around.
Doubtful. You have distance limitations you need to worry about.
> B. the committee assumed you would use a single byte for the number of
> ports, and it is variable length so you don't incur too much overhead.
> C. it was some kind of compromise / screwup in the decision on how many
> devices were supported by a single bus.
>
> Option C seems the most likely.
I agree. Either way it's fine. I could honestly care less if we support
255 ports over 127 ports. But 16 ports are much more likely which is why
I wanted to support more than that :)
Randy, thanks for the work! I'm testing the patch now but like I mentioned
in my other email, I don't suspect any problems.
JE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
