On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, David Brownell wrote:
> Re timer polling -- yes, that's a mess, and I seem to recall you were
> looking at a way to let HCDs (like OHCI and EHCI) say they don't need
> a root hub timer. (Hmm, maybe just add a hc_driver.flags bit to say if
> the HCD wants the timer, and some w
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, Alan Stern wrote:
> I already wrote a patch for it a couple of months ago. It wasn't complete
> and it needs to be updated.
Here is a somewhat updated version of that old patch. I haven't tested
it. Also the HCDs should be changed to match.
Alan Stern
diff -u usb-2.6
We seem to be getting closer to agreement...
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005, David Brownell wrote:
> On Friday 18 February 2005 8:40 am, Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > What if CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND isn't set? Yes, I know we're trying to move
> > away from this possibility. But for the moment we still need to ha
On Friday 18 February 2005 8:40 am, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> What if CONFIG_USB_SUSPEND isn't set? Yes, I know we're trying to move
> away from this possibility. But for the moment we still need to handle it
> correctly.
Let me turn that around: how could just _removing_ states from the system
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 09 February 2005 12:23 pm, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > As far as usbcore is concerned, the states an HC can be in are:
> >
> > a. Running normally.
> >
> > b. Root hub suspended.
> >
> > c. Root hub and HC both suspended.
> >
>
On Wednesday 09 February 2005 12:23 pm, Alan Stern wrote:
> As far as usbcore is concerned, the states an HC can be in are:
>
> a. Running normally.
>
> b. Root hub suspended.
>
> c. Root hub and HC both suspended.
>
> d. Died.
>
> e. Gone (i.e., after usb_deregi
Dave:
Going back to the questions about hcd->state... Let's consider just how
it's used in hcd.c. Slightly rearranged from what I said before, these
uses include:
1. Tested during URB submission for a device on the bus.
2. Tested during root-hub control URB submission.
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005, David Brownell wrote:
> I think I've said for some time that it needs work. Though there don't
> seem to be any clearly defined problems with it just now ... we may be
> working towards having some, which means we'd know what to change.
We are (or I am, anyway). Maybe not c
On Sunday 23 January 2005 9:18 am, Alan Stern wrote:
> David:
>
> As part of the ongoing changes to the hcd glue layer, I'd like to discuss
> some more the hcd->state field. I'm still uncomfortable about the way it
> gets used:
>
> It's not clearly owned either by usbcore or by the HCD.
>
On Sun, 23 Jan 2005 12:18:32 -0500 (EST), Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> unsignedokay_to_submit_urbs:1;
> unsignedokay_to_use_root_hub:1;
> unsignedokay_to_handle_irq:1;
Just use bitops, and get a free protection out of the deal.
-- Pete
-
David:
As part of the ongoing changes to the hcd glue layer, I'd like to discuss
some more the hcd->state field. I'm still uncomfortable about the way it
gets used:
It's not clearly owned either by usbcore or by the HCD.
It's not protected by a semaphore or spinlock.
HCDs may h
11 matches
Mail list logo
