On Fri, 24 Mar 2006, Franck Bui-Huu wrote: > I made a mistake, it's not case 10 that failed but rather case 11. > This case ask for 9 bytes but the device answer with 32 bytes, thus > the EOVERFLOW status given by the host. If I remember well, the device > should stall in that case, but the zero driver doesn't notice any > errors to the UDC driver...who is doing the wrong thing ?
Case 11 asks for an endpoint descriptor, which is an illegal request. zero.c returns -EOPNOTSUPP from zero_setup(), so the UDC driver should STALL the endpoint. Alan Stern ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&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
