Ben wrote:
> I'm off to collapse into bed happy now I've found the FAT32 specs...
If you're interested, we have written a small (1000 lines of C) standalone
fat32 implementation in the Rockbox project:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/rockbox/firmware/drivers/fat.c
Combine it wit
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet1.588.1.6 -> 1.588.1.7
# drivers/usb/sto
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet1.588.1.4 -> 1.588.1.5
# drivers/net/ird
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet1.588.1.2 -> 1.588.1.3
# drivers/usb/hos
Pull from: http://linuxusb.bkbits.net/linus-2.5
drivers/net/irda/irda-usb.c |2
drivers/usb/Makefile|1
drivers/usb/core/hcd.c | 24
drivers/usb/core/hcd.h | 16
drivers/usb/core/usb.c | 16
drivers/usb/host/Config.help| 10
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet1.588.1.1 -> 1.588.1.2
# drivers/usb/sto
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet1.588.1.5 -> 1.588.1.6
# drivers/usb/cor
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet1.588.1.3 -> 1.588.1.4
# drivers/usb/sto
# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: Linux kernel tree
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
# ChangeSet1.588 -> 1.588.1.1
# drivers/usb/host
Matthew Dharm wrote:
>That's easy:
>FAT-32
>
>
You're right - less wasted space than FAT16...
I'm off to collapse into bed happy now I've found the FAT32 specs...
Thanks again! :-)
Ben
___
Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Applicati
Guys,
I've got a customer who complains about lockups with a new
version of Sony's MS controller. Unfortunately, he resists my
mind control powers when I try to type keys on his laptop
remotely. :) Did anyone hear of someone with this problem
who can get me stack snapshots to track the lockup?
-
On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 02:26:11PM -0700, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> In case anyone is interested
>
> Apparently, in drivers/net/irda is a file usb-irda which references the
> next field of an URB, which no longer exists in 2.5.x
>
> I don't know how to fix it, but I thought someone might like t
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 09:43:43PM +0300, Johann Deneux wrote:
> Hi,
>
> It seems to me that code and comments disagree in drivers/usr/core/usb.c.
>
> I attached a patch fixing the comments. Hopefully the code is right :)
> This patch is against 2.5.16
Thanks, I've added this to the USB tree an
Really, the 'cat /proc/bus/usb/devices' issue is two-fold. It's both a
locking issue and a queueing issue.
Any solution we implement really should address both aspects.
Matt
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 10:40:36AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:53:21PM -0400, Johannes Erdfelt wr
On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 05:53:21PM -0400, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Sat, May 25, 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > There's the much discussed USB storage bulk/control problem
> > > which is a slightly different, but still related locking issue.
> >
> > Can you tell me al
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:30:18AM +0200, Stephan Feder wrote:
> Dear Greg,
>
> Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Ok, now that 2.5.16 is out, we have a total of 4 different USB UHCI
> > controller drivers in the kernel! That's about 3 too many for me :)
> ...
>
> 1. I tried uhci-hcd and usb-uhci-hcd with
On Tue, May 28, 2002, Stephan Feder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >
> > Ok, now that 2.5.16 is out, we have a total of 4 different USB UHCI
> > controller drivers in the kernel! That's about 3 too many for me :)
> ...
>
> 1. I tried uhci-hcd and usb-uhci-hcd with linux-2.5.18 an
That's easy:
FAT-32
Matt
On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 01:02:25PM +0100, Ben wrote:
> Matthew Dharm wrote:
>
> Thanks for all the repies! :-)
>
> >>Am I correct in thinking that no drivers will be needed under Linux if
> >>the device identifies itself as mass storage class and implements the
> >>
Hi,
I had problems with the SanDisk SDDR-31 driver hanging up sometimes. I
read a similar report on the linux-usb-users mailing list. I worked
around the problem for a while by unloading and reloading both the
usb-uhci and usb-storage kernel modules before each use. Now my problems
have disappear
Dmitri wrote:
>Otherwise you should use one of DOS FS'es because they
>are a lowest common denominator, are well documented, and can be easily
>implemented in your microcontroller.
>
Since it's unlikely to store more than 512Mb - I think I might go for
FAT16 - easy to support and should work wit
On Tue, 2002-05-28 at 05:02, Ben wrote:
> >>Would the device also need to implement some sort of file system, such
> >>as ext2?
> >>
> >>
> >Yes, probably. The protocol operates at the block layer... unless you can
> >store what you need using block-level access, some filesystem support wi
Matthew Dharm wrote:
Thanks for all the repies! :-)
>>Am I correct in thinking that no drivers will be needed under Linux if
>>the device identifies itself as mass storage class and implements the
>>reduced block commands (rbc)?
>>
>>
>Yes.
>
Excellent stuff - I didn't want the extra bothe
On Wed, May 01, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> On Wed, May 01, 2002, Olaf Hering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, May 01, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> > > Could you tell me exactly how this version differs from -pre7?
> >
> > Al still working version of pre7 would look like that:
> > diff -urNX ex
23 matches
Mail list logo
