On Tue, 25 May 2004, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Tue, 25 May 2004 16:43:53 -0400 (EDT) > Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > P.P.S.: The hub_port_debounce() function doesn't behave as one would > > expect from the comments at the top. I trust no one will object if I > > rewrite it to make the routine do what it's supposed to do? > > Please elaborate. It took quite a bit of effort to make it work, > the story started way in 2.1 times. It's not a function which you > should be rewriting just because you feel like it.
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Greg KH wrote: > I will object. As Pete said, that function has gone through a lot of > testing and tweaking over time. I would trust the code, not the > comments there. Okay, I won't change any code without discussion. The comments could stand to be clarified though; would anybody mind that? I think it wouldn't hurt to change two aspects of this routine. The first is simple: Nils Faerber has requested that the HUB_DEBOUNCE_TIMEOUT value be increased from 400 ms to 1500 ms. That wouldn't affect normal stable connections but it would give slightly flaky devices a better chance of connecting properly. The second is to treat connect-change status properly -- make it reset the stable_count value back to 0. The way it is now, if the connection status is unstable and drops & returns within a 25 ms period, the routine won't realize that anything has happened. How do these changes sound? Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
