On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 12:27:51PM -0800, David Brownell wrote: > On Wednesday 16 February 2005 12:01 pm, Roman Kagan wrote: > > BTW the sanity checks added to usbfs handlers in 2.6.11 seem to allow > > exactly the opposite behavior, i.e. both bulk and interrupt URBs on > > interrupt endpoint, and only bulk URBs on bulk endpoints: > > > > ... > > > > Is that intentional, and I need to go reread the specs? > > That's intentional. The issue is that the hardware associated > with interrupt endpoints may not tolerate being polled more often > than specified in the descriptor, so that's prevented.
AFAICS what's prevented is interrupt URBs on bulk endpoints. Or am I missing the point? > [...] So "singleshot" requests had to go > in some other way ... and that way was sending a bulk URB to > an interrupt endpoint. We didn't elect to change that yet; Understood. But is there any problem using interrupt URBs with bulk endpoints? At least I did it in cxacru and it worked and even seemed to observe the requested interval. Roman. ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
