On Wed, 22 Oct 2003 12:11:18 -0700
Matthew Dharm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Looking at this, I'm more tempted to remove the test for bType in the IRQ
> -- this isn't the first device I've seen broken like this. It's using a
> UFI-style CBI interrupt for a non-UFI device. This is, apparently, one of
> many spec violations that windows silently ignores.
>
> Stephen, what happens if you just remove the check (search the code for the
> line that shows "CBI IRQ data showed reserved bType")?
It works fine with the check removed...
diff -Nru a/drivers/usb/storage/transport.c b/drivers/usb/storage/transport.c
--- a/drivers/usb/storage/transport.c Wed Oct 22 14:52:52 2003
+++ b/drivers/usb/storage/transport.c Wed Oct 22 14:52:52 2003
@@ -821,6 +821,8 @@
}
}
+#if 0
+ /* Removed because some devices do not follow the spec. */
/* If not UFI, we interpret the data as a result code
* The first byte should always be a 0x0
* The second byte & 0x0F should be 0x0 for good, otherwise error
@@ -830,6 +832,7 @@
us->iobuf[0]);
return USB_STOR_TRANSPORT_ERROR;
}
+#endif
switch (us->iobuf[1] & 0x0F) {
case 0x00:
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
_______________________________________________
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, use the last form field at:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
