On Saturday 07 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 07 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Friday 06 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
So the next thing to do is find a wall wart that will add some power
either directly to it, or to the hub its plugged
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
in dem E-Mail mit dem Betreff '[linux-usb-devel] Mail delivery failed:
returning message to sender'
(gesendet am Sat, 07 Jul 2007 09:28:16 +0200) mit der angegebenen
Absenderadresse 'Mail Delivery System [EMAIL PROTECTED]' wurde der
Virus 'W32.Sality.Q-1' gefunden.
Am Freitag, 6. Juli 2007 schrieb Alan Stern:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Hi,
I tried switching our allocation APIs to:
struct urb *usb_alloc_urb(struct usb_host_endpoint *ep, size_t
alloc_length, gfp_t mem_flags);
struct urb *usb_alloc_iso_urb(struct
My dear , Kimberly
DONT BE SILLY TO PAY HUNDREDS FOR SOFTWARE.
check it out and get the most wanted latest 2007 edition softwared at dirt
cheap rates.
http://soffttkjail.blogspot.com/
Microsoft Vista , office 2007/ Adobe / Macromedia / Corel and others
Download Now
Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,
in dem E-Mail mit dem Betreff '[linux-usb-devel] Mail delivery failed:
returning message to sender'
(gesendet am Sat, 07 Jul 2007 14:56:56 +0200) mit der angegebenen
Absenderadresse 'Mail Delivery System [EMAIL PROTECTED]' wurde der
Virus 'W32.Sality.Q-1' gefunden.
Hi All
Iam using Philips ISP 1161 USB Controller in the Powerpc 7448 based Board.
At present Iam trying to port the Linux 2.6 usb controller driver to
the USB Controller.
While porting the driver,
1. Bus got registered and bus number is assigned
2. IRQ number is assigned
3. Hub detected and
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, David Brownell wrote:
The total number of interrupts would depend on the HCD. Right now OHCI
is probably the worst case.
Worst??? No, I'd say it's intermediate between UHCI (lots of IRQs)
and EHCI (can have virtually none).
Is ehci-hcd really capable of doing that?
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, David Brownell wrote:
And BTW, it isn't necessarily true that IRQs are disabled during a real
interrupt. Those sharing the same IRQ line are, yes, but others don't
need to be. Our HCDs shouldn't need to set IRQF_DISABLED.
Change that only with extreme care. :)
In
On Saturday 07 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, David Brownell wrote:
The total number of interrupts would depend on the HCD. Right now OHCI
is probably the worst case.
Worst??? No, I'd say it's intermediate between UHCI (lots of IRQs)
and EHCI (can have virtually
By now this is moot, but nevertheless...
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
Humm. I thought I'd be smart and plugged the extra pigtail of the cable in
first (power the power), but that first reset the box, then powered it down!
But left the hd access led on for about 20 seconds?
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 07 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 07 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Friday 06 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
So the next thing to do is find a wall wart that will add some power
either
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
That's a real problem. During initial enumeration the usb_device
hasn't been registered yet, so the ep_device hasn't been created.
One possibility is to add yet another allocator:
struct urb *usb_alloc_ep0_urb(struct usb_device *udev,
Am Samstag, 7. Juli 2007 schrieb David Brownell:
On Saturday 07 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, David Brownell wrote:
The total number of interrupts would depend on the HCD. Right now OHCI
is probably the worst case.
Worst??? No, I'd say it's intermediate
Am Samstag, 7. Juli 2007 schrieb Alan Stern:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
That's a real problem. During initial enumeration the usb_device
hasn't been registered yet, so the ep_device hasn't been created.
One possibility is to add yet another allocator:
struct
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
This is very good and worth preserving.
IMHO the storage driver should be optimized for EHCI. The others must
work, but the most important is EHCI. So this would point to dynamic
allocation of URBs with one preallocated URB to fall back to for the
On Saturday 07 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 07 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Saturday 07 July 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Friday 06 July 2007, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Gene Heskett wrote:
So the next thing to do is find a
Am Samstag, 7. Juli 2007 schrieb Alan Stern:
This brings me to an idea.
Is it possible to accept the next scsi request while the current request is
being executed? That way, when the first request finishes, the URBs
could be retained if they are needed right away and otherwise freed.
On Sat, 7 Jul 2007, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Samstag, 7. Juli 2007 schrieb Alan Stern:
This brings me to an idea.
Is it possible to accept the next scsi request while the current request
is
being executed? That way, when the first request finishes, the URBs
could be retained if
18 matches
Mail list logo
