On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, David Brownell wrote: > (Removed jinzhucheng -- "@tom.com" -- from CC list so > this thread stops landing in my SPAM box...)
> > Deferred response to the STATUS stage is my question. The Gadget API > > doesn't seem to have any provision for supporting it at all. > > No, but as I pointed out there seems to be no need for it either; > we don't have examples of protocols that need it, and we do have > enough examples of hardware that can't support it that we want to > be steering drivers away from wanting such things. (Even on the > hardware which _could_ handle deferred ep0out status stages.) Okay, that's fine. I just wanted to verify this and make sure I hadn't misunderstood anything. > > I don't know of any drivers that _need_ these deferred responses. This > > was a theoretical question, prompted by some questions from the OP. > > The "OP"? jinzhucheng. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
