On Sat, 9 Oct 2004, David Brownell wrote: > On Friday 08 October 2004 9:08 am, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Clearly we should support both schemes. One thing my patch does is change > > the total number of tries (SET_CONFIG_TRIES) from 2 to 4, trying the Linux > > scheme twice and the Windows scheme twice. > > > > The question is, in what order should the schemes be tried? > > It won't matter except for marginal devices, right? :)
I hope not! :-) > So I'd try the more MSFT-like schemes first; I don't say > use "the" WIndows scheme, since I understand they > have used multiple schemes too. Okay, that seems to be the consensus. I haven't seen any other schemes, but then again I haven't tried testing the earliest versions of Windows with USB support. > One thing that bothers me about changing how the > hub_port_init() routine works is just that it's fragile, and > awkward to test. Got any ideas about how to create > a regression test for this? Like the 150 re-enumerations > at the end of the USBCV tests (from usb.org), but in > this case we'd be stressing hosts not peripherals. The only thing that comes to mind is to write a special gadget driver, which could imitate various broken forms of behavior. If done properly it should be useable with dummy_hcd, hence available on all platforms. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- 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
