On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 03:28:18AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Friday 01 August 2003 23:07, Greg KH wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 09:50:12PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >> >All I can suggest is that the USB support in 2.6.0 is much more
> >> > solid than in 2.4.22, so try to work there.
>
On Friday 01 August 2003 23:07, Greg KH wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 09:50:12PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> >All I can suggest is that the USB support in 2.6.0 is much more
>> > solid than in 2.4.22, so try to work there.
>>
>> Mayby so, but first you have to get it to build. It has some
>> M
On Mon, Jul 28, 2003 at 09:50:12PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >
> >All I can suggest is that the USB support in 2.6.0 is much more
> > solid than in 2.4.22, so try to work there.
> >
>
> Mayby so, but first you have to get it to build. It has some
> Makefiles in it that are IMO, broken, they a
On Friday 25 July 2003 18:02, Alan Stern wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Friday 25 July 2003 10:33, Alan Stern wrote:
>> >Good lord, no! The 2.4 version of the UHCI driver is vastly
>> > different from the 2.6 version. I wouldn't touch it without
>> > spending a few weeks s
On Saturday 26 July 2003 01:11, Charles Lepple wrote:
>On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 05:15 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> On Friday 25 July 2003 10:33, Alan Stern wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Gene Heskett wrote:
Just for grins Alan, are you going to make a single big patch
for 2.4.22-pre7
On Friday, July 25, 2003, at 05:15 PM, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Friday 25 July 2003 10:33, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Gene Heskett wrote:
Just for grins Alan, are you going to make a single big patch for
2.4.22-pre7 or so available when the dust has settled with this
rework?
Good lord, n
On Friday 25 July 2003 10:33, Alan Stern wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Just for grins Alan, are you going to make a single big patch for
>> 2.4.22-pre7 or so available when the dust has settled with this
>> rework?
>
>Good lord, no! The 2.4 version of the UHCI driver is vastl
On Thursday 24 July 2003 22:20, Alan Stern wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, David Brownell wrote:
>> Alan Stern wrote:
>> > You can't set periodic_iso_limit to 1024 on UHCI, because the
>> > driver reserves a grace period of 10 frames. The largest legal
>> > value is therefore UHCI_NUMFRAMES - 11.
>
>
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> > This should probably go into the core since every HCD needs it to be set
> > to 0.
>
> If we keep it, yes. But the only use of error_count seems to be
> in debug printk() calls ... is there a real reason
On Thu, Jul 24, 2003, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
>
> > > UHCI does not initialize urb->error_count to 0 anywhere. Again,
> > > that probably ought to be done in usb_submit_urb(), anyway.
> >
> > I must have missed when urb->error_count
On Wed, 23 Jul 2003, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> > UHCI does not initialize urb->error_count to 0 anywhere. Again,
> > that probably ought to be done in usb_submit_urb(), anyway.
>
> I must have missed when urb->error_count was added. What is it for? Why
> didn't the patch that added it implem
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The more I study the UHCI driver source, the more questions and other
> observations come up. I hope you won't mind taking the time to respond.
Nope. I'm actually excited that someone else has taken the time to look
over my code in th
12 matches
Mail list logo
