[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.2004282110170.26482-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2020 21:14:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...gle.com>
cc: USB list <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: raw-gadget: fix gadget endpoint selection
On Tue, 28 Apr 2020, Andrey Konovalov wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> This patch uses the approach that I mentioned in the discussion about
> endpoint selection. Does this look acceptable?
I haven't had time to look through it yet.
> I'm not sure which endpoint limits it makes sense to expose via
> USB_RAW_IOCTL_EPS_INFO. I'm more or less sure about maxpacket_limit
> and max_streams, but I don't exactly know what maxburst is used for.
> Maybe there are some others?
maxburst is a USB-3 thing. It mainly affects just throughput, not
functionality, and it's handled pretty much entirely by the hardware.
You shouldn't worry about it, at least, not now.
> I also wonder if we need to expose ep0 limits via USB_RAW_IOCTL_EPS_INFO too.
> expose ep0 parameters?
I don't think there are any significant attributes for ep0. In
general, gadget drivers have to live with what the hardware supports --
or else fail to run at all. After all, the driver can't substitute a
different endpoint for ep0.
Alan Stern
Powered by blists - more mailing lists