Oliver Neukum wrote:
If you really believe this to be a misreading where in the standards do they giveOK but in 2.6.8.1 the endpoint extra info is not searched for class specific descriptors.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me to put these descriptors after the endpoint
descriptors.
That is a common (mis)reading. Therefore a fix is in the pipeline and
hopefully in 2.6.9.
*any* indication of the order of descriptors within an interface? If you insist on the
interpretation that "after" means "association" then the endpoints after the class
specific descriptors should be closer related to the class specific descriptors than
the interface descriptor. Or more directly where does it say that the endpoint
descriptors are some sort of delimiter indicating the end of the interface?
You find a clarity of expression in the usb standards I do not but I have to
agree with you that this is the *right thing to do*.
So I saw it, too. But again we are dealing with real hardware.
[..]
Now that we are chatting ;-), I don't see that the CDC standard specifies the necessity of
a union descriptor, a CDC modem should be perfectly capable of functioning without the
interrupt notification interface (just a control interface), I have
But not without the union descriptor. The standard tells us that the control and slave interfaces are listed in the union descriptor. To contain this information the descriptor must be present.
Indeed. I read further after I sent the mail and saw it too.
Thanks for giving me your time, guys.
/Brian
------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
