On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, James McMechan wrote:
> Yep, two hub threads one in the UML and one in the host system
> which is why it will need a hub proxy. I don't know what it is legal
> to do from userspace, the usbdevfs documentation sparse notably
> on async urbs and reaping.
For hubs, it's legal to
>From: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: James McMechan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [email protected],
>
>Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [ link to patch] resurrecting the uml-hcd
>Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 10:59:12 -0400 (EDT)
>
>On Mo
On Mon, 14 Aug 2006, James McMechan wrote:
> >There's no point queuing an URB for the root hub. Queued URBs are sent
> >out over the USB bus... which makes no sense when the URB's destination is
> >the HCD itself.
> >
> >Or to put it another way: Why should an HCD have to work to unpack the
> >re
>From: Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: James McMechan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>CC: [email protected],
>
>Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [ link to patch] resurrecting the uml-hcd
>Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 15:00:35 -0400 (EDT)
>
>On Su
On Sun, 13 Aug 2006, James McMechan wrote:
> I am attempting to resurrect the uml-hcd driver
> this version is based off of the gadget/dummy_hcd.c driver.
>
> I am aiming at a 2.6.12.2 target where it will be used.
> I have forward ported it to 2.6.17.6 for testing and hopefully
> eventual inclus
I am attempting to resurrect the uml-hcd driver
this version is based off of the gadget/dummy_hcd.c driver.
I am aiming at a 2.6.12.2 target where it will be used.
I have forward ported it to 2.6.17.6 for testing and hopefully
eventual inclusion.
This patch has a #PLATFORM to deal with the issues
