Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 17:36:47 -0400 From: "Rita Lin" <ritalin@comcast.net> To: <ticso@cicely.de> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: USB device driver question: timeout() and usbd_do_request() Message-ID: <001a01c43156$bce21c60$9402a8c0@emachine> References: <004c01c43053$2a775920$9402a8c0@emachine> <20040503120824.GG38488@cicely12.cicely.de> <008901c4314e$72b214e0$9402a8c0@emachine> <20040503211005.GJ38488@cicely12.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Igh - that sounds like a very bad device design then. > There would have been lots a ways to do in a clean way without > additional pipes - such as transfering 0 sized packets to trigger a > status inquiry or by adding status bytes in each packet. > For what purpose do you need to poll the status in case for this device? I would not say it's a very bad device design. However, I do agree with you that there are numerous way to implement it. Most devices generate interrupts when there is a modem status change. This particular device does not support interrupts. > Yes that's possible as long a you have separate pipes for each channel. > But if you have separate pipes for each channel then the device could > use separate USB interfaces as well so you can attach seprate instances > of your driver as well without doing special handling. > -- > B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de > bernd@bwct.de info@bwct.de > That is correct provided that xxx_softc is handled correctly, otherwise, you will end up handling wrong ucom_softc each time when driver specific routines are called. I didn't do any special handling in my driver methods. As I mentioned earlier, I only did a trick in declaring the xxx_softc. ucom_attach() attaches one instance of my driver. I made this comment because I saw some earlier posts about ucom needed modification to support multiple ports. Rita
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001a01c43156$bce21c60$9402a8c0>