> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2001 5:50 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: [linux-usb-devel] Found Bug in Enumeration
>
> > FROM: Dunlap, Randy
> > DATE: 03/02/2001 08:14:05
> > SUBJECT: RE: [linux-usb-devel] Found Bug in Enumeration Hi Michal,
> >
> > Seems like there are 2 points that need to be cleared up here.
> > I'll try to do that (below).
> > [...]
> > I don't understand this (above). >>> Linux-USB is following the
> > spec. <<< Why does the firmware need to send 60 bytes instead
> > of 8? How would you rather develop the firmware?
>
> Are you sure, that linux-usb follows the spec? One example: The spec
> says: >>> The lower byte of the wValue field specifies the desired
> configuration. This configuration value must be zero or match a con-
> figuration value from a configuration descriptor. If the configuration
> value is zero, the device is placed in its Address state. The upper
> byte of the wValue field is reserved. <<< [USB 1.1, 9.4.7 Set
> Configura-tion]
>
> But when I submit a SET_CONFIGURATION(0) I get punished with an
> error return code...
>
> Regards,
> Gregor
In removing a good bit of my previous message, you also
removed the context in which it was written.
I was writing about transfer lengths in GET_DEVICE and
GET_CONFIG control transfers. I believe that Linux-USB
conforms to the USB spec on those requests.
It could certainly be the case that there are places where
Linux-USB does not match the USB spec., so please help by
pointing them out (like you have, and like you did a few
days ago IIRC) and by providing patches.
So, did you ask about this a few days ago? I recall it
vaguely but I can't find it in the email archives.
~Randy
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
