On Sep 22, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Thomas Charron wrote:
I noticed that, I'll see if I can't debug it further. I'm wondering
if the ecode returned is different then EPIPE, but has a simular if
not identical libusb error string. I suspect this is the case, as it
is not only doing this unsupported requests, but for other requests as
well.
It's possible that some requests require more processing on the UPS
side. Do the timestamp deltas around the failed requests look close to
the USB_TIMEOUT value?
So as a matter of reporting, what is the best way to give
information for inclusion in future releases? And better, who to give
it to? The list as a whole, or specific driver maintainers?
This list is the best place, I think.
Feel free to send diffs against 2.6.0, or if you're comfortable with
Git or Mercurial, there is a Git tree at GitHub which has a v2.6.0 tag
that you can use as a branch point:
https://github.com/clepple/nut/tree/v2.6.0
_______________________________________________
Nut-upsdev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
