I finally managed to make a configuration that *seems* to work and I
realize that I may have had something else blocking the WebUSB interface
(2) while modemmanager was communicating with the CDC_ACM interface (1).
I made a clean arbitrary VID/PID and get what seems to be a functioning
WebUSB
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Lars Knudsen wrote:
> A small update: When the modemmanager finishes probing (~16 secs after
> connection) data seems to stop flowing in from the WebUSB bulk endpoint
> also. It is, however, possible to reconnect and get data again - so I
A small update: When the modemmanager finishes probing (~16 secs after
connection) data seems to stop flowing in from the WebUSB bulk endpoint
also. It is, however, possible to reconnect and get data again - so I need
to see if there should be anything in the mbed firmware causing that
behavior
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 20:05 +0100, Lars Knudsen wrote:
> For all practical reasons and looking ahead, I truly believe that
> there
> will be no reason to have a WebUSB header in any of the few coming
> modem
> devices (what are the stats on new USB CDC modems for these years in
> general? - still
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:43 PM, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Lars Knudsen writes:
>
> > configured with [0]CDC INT, [1]CDC BULK and [2]WebUSB CDC/BULK) would:
> >
> > 1) not be considered a modem (it would not make sense to do a modem
> > including webusb headers - in
Hi,
I don't even pretend to understand this one. Let's say I have a
service that looks like:
[Unit]
Description=nginx
After=docker.service
Requires=docker.service
[Service]
StandardInput=tty-force
ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker run --name %p nginx
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:32:40PM -0800, Reilly Grant wrote:
> On 2017-01-09 9:55 am, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:13:04PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > > Greg KH writes:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:40:59AM +, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> > > > wrote:
On Jan 10, 2017 07:51, "Greg KH" wrote:
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:32:40PM -0800, Reilly Grant wrote:
> On 2017-01-09 9:55 am, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:13:04PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> > > Greg KH writes:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:40:59AM +, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote:
> >> Web USB can only grab devices which has special Web USB headers. It can not
>
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Lars Knudsen wrote:
Hi,
I am currently looking into how we can make using WebUSB devices less
painful for users on Linux.
The main purpose of WebUSB (as far as I can see) is to enable certain CDC
(in particular - but not limited to) devices
On Jan 9, 2017 10:53, "Mantas Mikulėnas" wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:20 AM, Lars Knudsen wrote:
Hi,
I am currently looking into how we can make using WebUSB devices less
painful for users on Linux.
The main purpose of WebUSB (as far as I can see) is
+Balbi
On 1/9/17, 11:37 AM, "Kenneth Rohde Christiansen"
> wrote:
Adding Sakari and Babu, who might want to add a few people from our side.
Cheers
Kenneth
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 10:20 AM Lars Knudsen
On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 11:29:24AM +0100, Aleksander Morgado wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 11:07 AM, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:40:59AM +, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen
> wrote:
> > >>
Hi,
I am currently looking into how we can make using WebUSB devices less
painful for users on Linux.
The main purpose of WebUSB (as far as I can see) is to enable certain CDC
(in particular - but not limited to) devices communicate directly with
browsers visiting certain trusted sites (listed
Sorry for my mistake,I have attached the output from busybox-bootchart
initially.
Now I have attached the correct file from systemd-bootchart. The I/O
utilization part is empty. Please let me know how to enable that for NAND flash.
> Hello systemd developers,
>
> I am currently analyzing the
I have som more input - but really need Reilly's comments on this:
As hardware manufacturers most often want to make it possible for users to
use their hardware in a WebUSB setting as well as in a "normal" app mode,
we will most likely see composite devices that could have the following
I don't think we need to change anything in the kernel. What we need is
generic udev rule that fixes up permissions for the WebUSB Interface.
IIRC, WebUSB is implemented much like CDC ACM, however bInterfaceClass
is set to Vendor Specific. That should be enough to prevent CDC-ACM
driver from
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 01:12:11PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>
> I don't think we need to change anything in the kernel. What we need is
> generic udev rule that fixes up permissions for the WebUSB Interface.
>
> IIRC, WebUSB is implemented much like CDC ACM, however bInterfaceClass
> is set to
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 07:51:05PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Fri, 06.01.17 11:59, Marcelo Tosatti (mtosa...@redhat.com) wrote:
>
> > Cache Allocation Technology is a feature on selected recent Intel Xeon
> > processors which allows control over L3 cache allocation.
>
> What precisely
On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 06:13:04PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote:
> Greg KH writes:
> > On Mon, Jan 09, 2017 at 09:40:59AM +, Kenneth Rohde Christiansen wrote:
> >> Web USB can only grab devices which has special Web USB headers. It can not
> >> grab any USB device.
> >>
> >>
It seemed like if just one interface in the description list was somehow
compliant with modem manager, the full device seemed claimed.
I may have missed something in my headers while experimenting. Can you give
an example of a header structure that will not be assumed to be a modem by
MM while
On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 01:51:17PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 05:26:36PM +0200, Mantas Mikulėnas wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 3:59 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Cache Allocation Technology is a feature on selected recent
On Jan 9, 2017 18:56, "Bjørn Mork" wrote:
> Lars Knudsen writes:
>
> > It seemed like if just one interface in the description list was somehow
> > compliant with modem manager, the full device seemed claimed.
> >
> > I may have missed something in my headers
On Mon, 2017-01-09 at 19:22 +0100, Lars Knudsen wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2017 18:56, "Bjørn Mork" wrote:
>
> > Lars Knudsen writes:
> >
> > > It seemed like if just one interface in the description list was
> > > somehow
> > > compliant with modem manager, the full
For all practical reasons and looking ahead, I truly believe that there
will be no reason to have a WebUSB header in any of the few coming modem
devices (what are the stats on new USB CDC modems for these years in
general? - still enough to justify a "blanket claim as modem"?) as having a
25 matches
Mail list logo