On Monday 10 April 2006 4:40 am, Ole André Vadla Ravnås wrote: > > > > > Hmm, well http://www.usb.org/developers/defined_class > > > says that there is a "misc" protocol for RNDIS, but it > > > doesn't match the one you provided (that's for Bluetooth!) > > > and there's no spec I can find ... > > > > Hmm, really? I've used base class 0xEF, sub-class 0x01 and protocol > > 0x01, which is what is specified there (if I understood it correctly).
The table is pretty clear; "RNDIS" is 0xe0/1/3 ... and 0xef/1/1 is "active sync", not RNDIS. Something is Still Not Right. ... but of course the Microsoft pointers there do not seem to lead to anything like specification,s or AFAICT even a presentation that tells developers how and why they're revising either RNDIs or ActiveSync. That's the sort of thing that IMO the EU should be concerned with in terms of Microsoft's excuses-for-specs being inadequate to write interoperable network software. Seems like what you have is updates to the RNDIS driver that probably add up to being vendor-specific bug workarounds ... or else add partial support for ActiveSync. If the former, then please recast this patch to match against the vendor and product IDs for those devices, rather than matching ActiveSync but not RNDIS ... if the latter, please update the patch to at least mention that reverse engineering seems to expose the fact that ActiveSync builds atop some undocumented subset of RNDIS. - Dave ------------------------------------------------------- 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
