The usb(dev)fs code should "do the right thing" and act just like any other driver ... right now its interrupt handling code is UHCI-specific.
- Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 11:43 AM Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] usbdevfs questions (and others... ) > Right - that sounds like a good plan for a real driver. Using the > usbdevfs code however, if you call proc_reapurb() the completed > request is freed before the call returns to you, so there is still a chance the > urb will interrupt again before you get to cancel it. > > since usbdevfs always frees that urb, it doesn't seem it would work > on any urb which resubmits itself for any reason. Perhaps the > free_async() code should explicitly unlink the urb before freeing > the memory. > > Roland > > > > > On Thu, 14 February 2002, David Brownell wrote: > > > > > > It's odd that the two types of hardware treat the interrupt case where > > > interval == 0 differently. Is either of them wrong by the specification > > > or are they both right? > > > > My take is that the interval==0 behavior is a UHCI driver behavior > > that should not be relied on. Magic values like that are trouble. > > > > The portable way to get a one-shot interrupt transfer should be > > to submit the transfer as usual (real period) then unlink it in the > > completion handler for that transfer. > > > > _______________________________________________ > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
