On Friday 03 February 2006 1:12 pm, Jeff Warren wrote: > So my question is, is > there any benefit from having the (usb_request*)->buf buffer the same > size as the maxpacket size (64 bytes in my case)?
You'll get results after each packet, rather than waiting for a large (e.g. 4KB) buffer to fill. For something like a serial driver that's a better match for the application model. > Okay, so the end answer is that the driver can take those 64 byte packets > and fill a buffer much larger than that, which is the buffer pointed to > by the member variable usb_request->buf in the usb_request struct. Yes; if you tell at91_udc (via usb_request objects) to feed your driver in small mouthfuls of data, it will do so; or, you can ask for a while meal at once, and it will do that instead. None of that is specific to at91_udc of course. - Dave ------------------------------------------------------- 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
