Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2002, Dan Streetman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 11 Oct 2002, Johannes Erdfelt wrote:
> > >On Fri, Oct 11, 2002, Dan Streetman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> > >> -changed lowspeed control TDs from depth to breadth.
> > >
> > >Why for? This will guarantee that it will take (# of TD's * 1 ms) time
> > >to complete.
> >
> > Well, mainly to make the code common...but also, making it depth opens the
> > possibility (for a large transfer) of hogging the bus, and, will most
> > lowspeed devices really be able to send more than 1 packet per frame?
>
> It's control, it's allowed to hog the bus. I don't see the difference
> between transferring x packets in one frame versus 1 packet in x frames.
>
> I know that there are low speed devices that can send multiple packets
> per frame.
>
> The only disadvantage I can see is if a device has to NAK. We could use
> that packet to do something more useful. I don't think it's a problem
> because the most common usage of low speed control is enumeration time.
> I'd rather not slow that down anymore than it needs to be.
The HC does not control bandwidth reclamation for low speed transfers. I
am not sure what happens in case of frame overrun (device stall, or
would that not matter in case of control endpoints?).
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
