On 29/05/14 19:55, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Jim Baxter writes:
>
>> The NDP was ignoring the wNextNdpIndex in the NDP which
>> means that NTBs containing multiple NDPs would have missed
>> frames.
>
> Well, just for the record: I believe this field was meant to be reserved
> and always 0 in the CDC
On 29/05/14 19:55, Bjørn Mork wrote:
Jim Baxter jim_bax...@mentor.com writes:
The NDP was ignoring the wNextNdpIndex in the NDP which
means that NTBs containing multiple NDPs would have missed
frames.
Well, just for the record: I believe this field was meant to be reserved
and always 0
Jim Baxter writes:
> The NDP was ignoring the wNextNdpIndex in the NDP which
> means that NTBs containing multiple NDPs would have missed
> frames.
Well, just for the record: I believe this field was meant to be reserved
and always 0 in the CDC NCM spec. Table 3-3, describing 16bit NDPs,
says
The NDP was ignoring the wNextNdpIndex in the NDP which
means that NTBs containing multiple NDPs would have missed
frames.
Signed-off-by: Jim Baxter
---
drivers/usb/gadget/f_ncm.c | 146 +++-
1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
diff --git
The NDP was ignoring the wNextNdpIndex in the NDP which
means that NTBs containing multiple NDPs would have missed
frames.
Signed-off-by: Jim Baxter jim_bax...@mentor.com
---
drivers/usb/gadget/f_ncm.c | 146 +++-
1 file changed, 78 insertions(+), 68
Jim Baxter jim_bax...@mentor.com writes:
The NDP was ignoring the wNextNdpIndex in the NDP which
means that NTBs containing multiple NDPs would have missed
frames.
Well, just for the record: I believe this field was meant to be reserved
and always 0 in the CDC NCM spec. Table 3-3, describing
6 matches
Mail list logo