Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 4 May 2004 01:28:51 +0200
From:      Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely12.cicely.de>
To:        Rita Lin <ritalin@comcast.net>
Cc:        ticso@cicely.de
Subject:   Re: USB device driver question: timeout() and usbd_do_request()
Message-ID:  <20040503232850.GL38488@cicely12.cicely.de>
In-Reply-To: <006f01c43160$b84a1220$9402a8c0@emachine>
References:  <004c01c43053$2a775920$9402a8c0@emachine> <20040503120824.GG38488@cicely12.cicely.de> <008901c4314e$72b214e0$9402a8c0@emachine> <20040503211005.GJ38488@cicely12.cicely.de> <001a01c43156$bce21c60$9402a8c0@emachine> <20040503222538.GK38488@cicely12.cicely.de> <006f01c43160$b84a1220$9402a8c0@emachine>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, May 03, 2004 at 06:48:14PM -0400, Rita Lin wrote:
> > That is what I call a bad design.
> > You waste resources because the device designer did not take the
> > features he had available.
> Okay, I guess so. There are also other minor things that I don't understand
> why
> the device is implemented the way it is. Since I don't make it,  and I don't
> work for
> the company that makes it, it's beyond me.

Obviously.
I also understand that a vendor can't use an interrupt pipe for this
case as USB hardware is usually limited in number and type of pipes
it can handle, but USB offers much more.

It's also not absolutely clear to me why you are interested in regular
status information at all?

> > If this is a device level driver yes.
> > But I still think that a device with multiple ports and separate
> > pipes per port should also offer multiple USB interfaces.
> Are you talking about USB interfaces at software layer or physical layer? I
> think I'm confused here.
> If it's software layer, yes, the device offers multiple USB interfaces. Each
> interface has its own pipes.
> But, of course, the default pipe is shared.

That's what I mean - so the vendor intendend use is to attach at
interface level, which means each port has it's completely own instance
of driver (and also a softc on it's own) - no difference for ucom
comparing to completely different devices.
If you instead take the whole device at once you can't use the same
driver to work with other variants of the same protocol.
Maybe the vendor also has a device plus a printer interface in the
future.

-- 
B.Walter                   BWCT                http://www.bwct.de
bernd@bwct.de                                  info@bwct.de



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040503232850.GL38488>