Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 18:48:14 -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: <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$9402a8c0@emachine> <20040503222538.GK38488@cicely12.cicely.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> That is what I call a bad design. > You waste resources because the device designer did not take the > features he had available. Okay, I guess so. There are also other minor things that I don't understand why the device is implemented the way it is. Since I don't make it, and I don't work for the company that makes it, it's beyond me. > If this is a device level driver yes. > But I still think that a device with multiple ports and separate > pipes per port should also offer multiple USB interfaces. Are you talking about USB interfaces at software layer or physical layer? I think I'm confused here. If it's software layer, yes, the device offers multiple USB interfaces. Each interface has its own pipes. But, of course, the default pipe is shared. Rita
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?006f01c43160$b84a1220$9402a8c0>