On Wed, 15 Oct 2003, Sergio Tagliapietra wrote:
> I got the info under 2.4.20, i hope it's the same... it didn't give the
> error at connection just like 2.4.21.
That should be fine.
>
> Hope it can help you/me :-)
>
> ---
> Bus 002 Device 002: ID 09aa:3642 Intersil Corp.
> Device Descriptor:
<snip>
> bNumConfigurations 1
> Configuration Descriptor:
> bLength 9
> bDescriptorType 2
> wTotalLength 39
> bNumInterfaces 1
<snip>
> Interface Descriptor:
> bLength 9
> bDescriptorType 4
> bInterfaceNumber 1
> bAlternateSetting 0
<snip>
That seems pretty clear, and unless I'm reading the USB specification
wrong, the device doesn't meet the spec. In Table 9-12, the description
for bInterfaceNumber says:
Number of this interface. Zero-based
value identifying the index in the array of
concurrent interfaces supported by this
configuration.
Since there's only one interface in this configuration, its
bInterfaceNumber should be 0, not 1.
Interestingly, with the old config.c code the configuration doesn't seem
to be recorded either:
> T: Bus=02 Lev=01 Prnt=01 Port=00 Cnt=01 Dev#= 2 Spd=12 MxCh= 0
> D: Ver= 1.10 Cls=00(>ifc ) Sub=00 Prot=00 MxPS= 8 #Cfgs= 1
> P: Vendor=09aa ProdID=3642 Rev= 1.32
> S: SerialNumber=01190006
> ---
Unless this copy of /proc/bus/usb/devices was truncated -- it looks like
it might be. If there were no configurations stored, it's hard to see how
the device could have worked under 2.4.20.
So Greg, the new code is technically correct. But since it's causing
problems with non-compliant hardware, maybe it should be changed. What do
you think?
Alan Stern
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects.
See the people who have HELPED US provide better services:
Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
