Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
..
> Anyway, to be correct, it looks like we need to ensure that we don't
> schedule too many low speed control transfers at once, perhaps by
> queuing them until previous ones finish.
As UHCI can process a queue with tds for more than a single endpoint
this looks good. It only gets nasty if a td for one endpoint does gets
NAKed or errors out, thereby preventing the queue from advancing to tds
for other endpoints. But better slow than broken (it would be nice to
know what would happen in case of overrun).
Regards,
Stephan
-------------------------------------------------------
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
