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 studying it first.
>
> Chuckle, I guess thats cl
Alan Stern wrote:
I'd go for something like this patch. It resolves a FIXME and
makes a small behavior change: if the period is too big, it no
longer automagically limits it except for the case of full speed
interrupt transfers. (Which continue with the current behavior,
making a lot of drivers
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 vastly different
from the 2.6 version. I wouldn't to
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.
Shortly after sending that off, I realized it was n
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, David Brownell wrote:
> >>>It'd also be good to let USB device drivers know the biggest iso period
> >>>that can be scheduled. It's not necessarily the same as the biggest
> >>>interrupt period, and on EHCI it's also configurable. Otherwise drivers
> >>>will not be able to t
It'd also be good to let USB device drivers know the biggest iso period
that can be scheduled. It's not necessarily the same as the biggest
interrupt period, and on EHCI it's also configurable. Otherwise drivers
will not be able to tell in advance what requests are legal.
Is it always as large or
On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> 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
Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
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 re
Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
My brain wasn't functioning well. error_count has been in since 2.4.
It's just as broken in uhci.o.
In fact it seems like only ehci and the sl811hs code initialize it...
two drivers, curiously enough, where the ISO code doesn't work so well.
This should probably go into th
Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
We could alternatively do something similar to what OHCI does and use an
even and odd frame list.
That's been gone from "ohci-hcd" for over a year now... it
records frame numbers now (as Alan suggested).
The even/odd list only works if you somehow manage to have
ensured tha
10 matches
Mail list logo
