> 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 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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 _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
