I have tested your EHCI iso patch with our hardware. When I looked at source code, it seemed much better than my version of patch, but the functionality isn't so good (for me :( ).
We transfer a stream of four 16 bit channels over USB. In one channel there is a sample number that increases every sample period. We use this "counter" to detect errors in a stream. With my ehci patch I can transfer aproximately 3 MB of data without any error. It's quite small number, but this is due to a bug in our USB device (buffer overrun). When I use your ehci iso patch, an error apears every 10 kB on average. It seems to me that this "error rate" depends (not lineary) on number of packets per urb.
The ehci is made by Intel and the stream is high-bandwith (16 MB/s). You wrote that you had done lots of testing of your patch, so I'm wondering why there are so big differences. Do you have any explination of this.
Michal
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
