Greg KH wrote: > On Fri, Jul 19, 2002 at 02:24:39PM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > >>Such stuff could be layered at first, too. Though I suspect >>that a clean treatment of transfer buffers would lead to one >>new_urb() call for control, another for bulk/interrupt, and one >>more for ISO. Eventually, a "pipe-free" API would be nice; >>and there's no reason endpoints shouldn't point to devices, >>getting rid of at least that parameter. > > > I don't know about that. The "pipe" api is quite nice and comfortable.
Any bit-twiddling bothers me. It's also not all that efficiently done for bit twiddling. If nothing else, reducing usage of the pipe macros makes drivers shrink (and seemingly shrinks critical sections). > Remember, an endpoint _is_ just a one way pipe. Right ... and since we always need an endpoint descriptor structure, why should we also need a pipe datatype? :) - Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
