On 10/9/06, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "I need 2ms latency". > > "Do it the way we're doing it." > > "Uhh.. that is barely working for 50ms latency right now. And even if > > we got optimal performance, it could never theoretically get down to > > 2ms." > > "Too bad. This is The Way." > > You have not ** YET ** tried to do it the way that's known to work, > so it's no surprise you've been seeing the failures which lead to > the requirement to use double buffering.
Uh... I've been trying to use the existing drivers for about 5 years. Never worked. I finally got sick of putting up with it and decided to try to fix it from the bottom up. I want 2ms. Buffering in a two-URB-deep approach is a minumum of 4ms. What miracle of mathematics will allow that to give me what I want? I don't have to jab a pencil up my nose to know ahead of time it will hurt. > From where I sit, I see your response as "I refuse to even consider > using that known-to-work solution, it's My Way Or the Highway." Tell me how a 4ms deep buffer will give me 2ms latency and I will eat my words. It's a promise. Monty ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ linux-usb-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-devel
