Title: RE: linux-usb-devel digest, Vol 1 #1796 - 10 msgs
help
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2002 4:02 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: linux-usb-devel digest, Vol 1 #1796 - 10 msgs
Send linux-usb-devel mailing l
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:11:30PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 19:29, Greg KH wrote:
> > Sure, but it needs to be fast enough to do all of that. I remember
> > someone a while ago giving some numbers on this list showing that you
> > really couldn't do USB over ethernet due to t
Alan Cox wrote:
You want to write a layer so that you can do USB over ethernet sort of.
Thats interesting ... Some things like interrupt support and
isosynchronous will be interesting.
Control, and bulk should be fairly straightforward ... just write a
usermode process to proxy a device, and wh
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:11:30PM +, Alan Cox wrote:
> Two assumptions
>
> 1.You care. For most cases you don't
> 2.You tunnel URBs rather than building an RPC libusb.
Ah, yeah, that would work. I was thinking raw USB packets for some
reason...
greg k-h
--
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 19:29, Greg KH wrote:
> Sure, but it needs to be fast enough to do all of that. I remember
> someone a while ago giving some numbers on this list showing that you
> really couldn't do USB over ethernet due to timing issues.
Two assumptions
1. You care. For most cases y
Hi,
On Wed, Nov 20, 2002 at 12:48:18AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:16:09PM +0100, Henning Meier-Geinitz wrote:
> > +static inline void
> > +usb_scanner_inc_use(struct scn_usb_data *scn)
> > +{
> > + atomic_inc(&scn->users);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline void
> > +usb_sca
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 07:52:47PM +0100, Georg Acher wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:05:36AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:34:38PM +0100, Erik Forsberg wrote:
> > >
> > > The second question is, is it possible if we keep in mind that it
> > > shouldn't take me more than
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:05:36AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:34:38PM +0100, Erik Forsberg wrote:
> >
> > The second question is, is it possible if we keep in mind that it
> > shouldn't take me more than about 10-12 weeks, and that I have no or
> > little experience of Linu
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 06:34:38PM +0100, Erik Forsberg wrote:
>
> The second question is, is it possible if we keep in mind that it
> shouldn't take me more than about 10-12 weeks, and that I have no or
> little experience of Linux kernel programming and/or USB?
Heh, go try to read the USB spec
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 17:34, Erik Forsberg wrote:
> Hi!
>
> I'm in the process of choosing what to do as a Master thesis, and one
> of the alternatives is to try to get USB working over a network.
>
> The company I'm doing the work for would like to transfer USB from a
> thin client (based on Lin
On Wed, 2002-12-04 at 17:34, Erik Forsberg wrote:
> The second question is, is it possible if we keep in mind that it
> shouldn't take me more than about 10-12 weeks, and that I have no or
> little experience of Linux kernel programming and/or USB?
Including building the needed hardware ? (USB is
Hi!
I'm in the process of choosing what to do as a Master thesis, and one
of the alternatives is to try to get USB working over a network.
The company I'm doing the work for would like to transfer USB from a
thin client (based on Linux) to a fat server (also running
Linux). That way, you could sy
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 10:46:05AM +0200, Heinrich du Toit wrote:
>
> Why did they remove the statement "typedef struct urb * purb_t; " in
> kernel 2.4.20 ??
Because stupid typedefs like that are evil, and not proper kernel coding
style :)
thanks,
greg k-h
---
On Wed, Dec 04, 2002 at 12:01:27PM +0200, Heinrich du Toit wrote:
> Hello
>
> I'm writing a usb driver.. with kernel version 2.4.20 at the moment.
> I just like to know.. Will I have to make serious changes to my driver
> when kernel 2.6 is released?
Yes you will, but I don't think they would be
Sylvain Meunier wrote:
Hi,
I'm currently updating/re-writing a host driver for SL811 circuit
for kernel 2.4. I've several questions about expected works of
host driver :
Any problems with the sl811hs driver in the 2.5 kernel? If that
doesn't work on 2.4 kernels, it should do so without much wo
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 10:18:01AM -0500, Dana Lacoste wrote:
> Trivial patch to get the RATOC USB60 USB-Serial converter working :
> (Patch relative to 2.4.20. I don't know what would be more current :)
Applied to 2.4 and 2.5, thanks.
greg k-h
-
On Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 12:25:24AM +0100, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Greg,
>
> I have updated my patch for disabling the bluetooth.o driver if the
> Bluetooth subsystem is selected. I forgot to interface correctly with
> the CONFIG_EXPERIMENTAL state of your driver.
Applied, thanks.
greg k-h
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:19:59PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Same patch was recently done for 2.5.x (with Kconfig);
> also needed in 2.4.20 (Config.in).
>
> Driver has unresolved references to sound/MIDI symbols
> (linker problems) without this if USB_MIDI = Y and
> SOUND isn't in-k
As a variation on a theme, consider what the usb-storage driver does when
its disconnect() routine is called. It does not abort the outstanding
urbs, at least not directly. Instead, the disconnect() routine waits on a
semaphore (which is held whenever the device is busy). Eventually,
either:
(
Dan Streetman wrote:
The reason _why_ a driver releases an interface doesn't
change the semantics of releasing it. Releasing involves
your point #1 (which implies #2).
It just seems strange to me to be aborting URBs for a device that no
longer exists...seems like the HCD would just clean th
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, David Brownell wrote:
> Alan Stern wrote:
> >
> > As a variation on a theme, consider what the usb-storage driver does when
> > its disconnect() routine is called. It does not abort the outstanding
> > urbs, at least not directly. Instead, the disconnect() routine waits on a
Alan Stern wrote:
As a variation on a theme, consider what the usb-storage driver does when
its disconnect() routine is called. It does not abort the outstanding
urbs, at least not directly. Instead, the disconnect() routine waits on a
semaphore (which is held whenever the device is busy). Eve
Alan Stern wrote:
I believe, as a result of a somewhat hasty
perusal of the USB spec, that it is legal under some circumstances for a
device to fail to reply at all to a USB transaction for an extended period
of time. For instance, if several isochronous OUT transfers in a row get
corrupted, th
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Dan Streetman wrote:
> I was under the impression that the HCD would notice (during the next
> frame) that those TDs (or EDs) have a target device that's no longer
> connected, and finish them with an error. If not, then how can the
> host controller execute that TD/ED? The d
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, David Brownell wrote:
> >>>I think you're right here; there are (at least) 3 things that need to
> >>>be done when disconnecting a driver from a device (interface):
> >>>
> >>>1. The driver must stop using the interface.
> >>>2. All pending URBs must be aborted.
> >>>3. The dev
On Wed, 4 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > Yes, any new driver's probe() normally handles #3. For
> > usbfs it's necessarily factored a bit differently, since
> > there's no probe(), but it's still the responsibility of
> > that driver.
>
> Provi
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, David Brownell wrote:
>> a driver is supposed to abort URBs after a device is disconnected?
>
>It's supposed to do that in disconnect(), yes, for any
>urbs that haven't yet completed. In what way would it
>be possible to achieve #1 without #2 ??
I was under the impression th
Am Mittwoch, 4. Dezember 2002 11:29 schrieb Sylvain Meunier:
> Hi,
>
> I'm currently updating/re-writing a host driver for SL811 circuit
> for kernel 2.4. I've several questions about expected works of
> host driver :
>
> 1) Does synchrone unlink must call complete() callback ? If yes
>Is suppo
Hi,
I'm currently updating/re-writing a host driver for SL811 circuit
for kernel 2.4. I've several questions about expected works of
host driver :
1) Does synchrone unlink must call complete() callback ? If yes
Is supposed it must call it before returning from unlink command ?
2) What is the
Hello
I'm writing a usb driver.. with kernel version 2.4.20 at the moment.
I just like to know.. Will I have to make serious changes to my driver
when kernel 2.6 is released?
Or will it keep on working?
Thanks
-Heinrich
---
This SF.net email
I upgraded to 2.4.20... no change.
And the uhci driver even locks up the system sometimes when usb-uhci
doesn't ;-)
But I found a trick.
I now unlink the send URB in the recieve_complete function.
This way it does get done.
And by just unlinking the 1 the whole send reviece process seems to stop
Good day all,
I am wanting to write a driver for a web cam which I 'accidently' aquired (
after originally being told that it was supported - but that's another story ).
I have the full camera chip specs, including two documentations, one for the
USB-to-CMOS bridge (SONiX) and o
32 matches
Mail list logo
