HI Greg,
Having read the discussion in this thread how does submitting a patch with:
read/write performance improvements
baud rate fixes
new PID's for various devices
the DTR/RTS fixes
unified startup code
throttle/unthrottle
and ftdi_sio fixes (for the original device).
TIOCSSERIA
Hi,
I' ve modified Abraham vd Merwe's driver for isp1161 for memory mapped IO
to make it work with StrongArm on kernel version 2.4.18-rmk4.
When trying to connect a usb mouse I get the following output in the message
file:
hub.c: USB new device connect on bus1/2, assigned device number 2
usb_c
Hi again,
is someone taking care of this patch? I do not want it to be lost.
Greetings,
Oliver
On Mon, Mar 03, 2003 at 11:14:19AM +0100, Oliver Kurth wrote:
> Hello!
>
> Recently, I had problems using NFS with my kaweth device, tcpdump showed
> fragmented packages. The reason, I found, was the
how fast is your strongarm processor? have you measured the
interrupt latency and the time it spend in the interrupt?
i have not used isp1161, but i have used cypress sl811, and i
have seen the same symptoms... having traced it with a usb traffic
analyzer, i found out my cpu was not fast enough
Hi,
[about the oops in ohci when a scanner is disconnected]
On Fri, Feb 28, 2003 at 09:07:17AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 11:15:34AM +0100, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 03:12:03PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 10:
Hello,
I am trying to connect an USB modem based on ST7554 chipset to my ARM machine using a
SL-811HS host controller.
I discovered that this modem works only with a driver provided by SmartLink with x86
architecture because full source code is not
provided.
So I looked for some ACM compliant mod
I have StrongArm SA1110 processor 133Mhz.
I didn't measured the interrupt latency time and time spend in the
interrupt,
because i didn't get any interrupt from the host controller.
I have connected optical usb mouse, and LED indicator on mouse doesn't
light.
It seams that host controller doesn't
Greg,
> > > (but if you do, watch out for the security problems in your ioctl
> > > implementation, it didn't look secure at first glance...)
> >
> > Ooops :-) What's wrong with it?
>
> You're letting any user do this ioctl. If that's ok, fine.
> You are also accepting data directly from the us
Am Dienstag, 11. März 2003 10:57 schrieb Oliver Kurth:
> Hi again,
>
> is someone taking care of this patch? I do not want it to be lost.
Unless I am mistaken it has been applied to Greg's 2.4 tree.
I'll do a 2.5 version soon.
Regards
Oliver N.
-
On Monday 10 March 2003 7:36 pm, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 10. März 2003 13:59 schrieb Duncan Sands:
> > Hi all, must the transfer_buffer I provide with an urb be
> > aligned on, say, a double-word boundary or something like
> > that?
>
> The alignment requirements are specific to the hardw
Am Dienstag, 11. März 2003 16:43 schrieben Sie:
> On Monday 10 March 2003 7:36 pm, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Montag, 10. März 2003 13:59 schrieb Duncan Sands:
> > > Hi all, must the transfer_buffer I provide with an urb be
> > > aligned on, say, a double-word boundary or something like
> > > that
Oliver Neukum wrote:
That means that you can't tell. So you must assume the worst.
The only safe usage with kmalloced memory is to have exactly
one buffer per kmalloced area and to start the buffer at offset 0.
None of the host controller hardware has alignment restrictions
for the start of DMA buf
Alan Stern wrote:
Or would it? The urb in question has to be allocated and freed somehow,
and either the driver or the core has to take care of this. By (2), this
ought to be handled by the core. So the submit routine allocates the urb
and passes a pointer to it back to the caller, while the
wai
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 10:12:16PM +1300, Bill Ryder wrote:
>
> HI Greg,
>
> Having read the discussion in this thread how does submitting a patch with:
> read/write performance improvements
> baud rate fixes
> new PID's for various devices
> the DTR/RTS fixes
> unified startup code
>
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 02:41:58PM +0100, Thomas Jarosch wrote:
> > You're letting any user do this ioctl. If that's ok, fine.
> > You are also accepting data directly from the user, without validating
> > the input at all. It looks like you can send a mis-formed data packet
> > to the device by
15 matches
Mail list logo
