Yes, 9 is the value that I send in with usb_fill_int_urb (), which assigns 256 to interval. The device is powered externally, and won't draw power from the bus.
/proc/bus/usb/devices: T: Bus=01 Lev=03 Prnt=06 Port=01 Cnt=02 Dev#= 23 Spd=480 MxCh= 0 D: Ver= 2.00 Cls=ff(vend.) Sub=00 Prot=ff MxPS=64 #Cfgs= 1 C:* #Ifs= 1 Cfg#= 1 Atr=80 MxPwr=500mA I: If#= 0 Alt= 0 #EPs= 6 Cls=ff(vend.) Sub=00 Prot=00 Driver=prod_drvr E: Ad=02(O) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=84(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=86(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=88(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=90(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms E: Ad=92(I) Atr=02(Bulk) MxPS= 512 Ivl=0ms I just call usb_submit_urb (urb, GFP_KERNEL); when I need to submit an interrupt urb. As the behavior is totally random, I thought that I should check that route too. Thanks. --- Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 7 Jun 2006, usb usb wrote: > > > Let me clarify one more thing - it's an interrupt > URB. > > Just before I submit the URB, I do some more > checking. > > I set some values, and also check them. > > status = 0, interval = 256 (I send in 9=>2^8), > > Um, what do you mean by "send in"? Is 9 the value > you pass to > usb_fill_int_urb? If so then it's correct. Or is 9 > the value you > assign to urb->interval? If so then it's wrong: > urb->interval should > be set to 256. > > > buffer > > len = 4 (my requirement), and the callback > function. > > If this doesn't already answer your question, > perhaps you should post the > relevant portion of your source code. Include also > the > /proc/bus/usb/devices entry for your device, so we > can check that the > values you use are acceptable to the device. > > > Everything seems to be alright. I will try to > check > > for halt (_get_status, _clear_halt) , and follow > USB > > specs (5.7.5), and see what happens. Is it a good > > idea/practise to do those sycnhronous calls > directly > > from my code? > > It's not a good idea to check things like that > unless you have some good > reason for it. In this case an endpoint halt would > give you -EPIPE, not > -EINVAL. > > > Is there a significant change in 2.6.16? > > I don't think so. > > Alan Stern > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ [email protected] To unsubscribe, use the last form field at: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-usb-users
