On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Karsten Wiese wrote: > How about: > Urbs stopping/starting at (uFrame % 8) != 0 can share ITDs,
If there's a problem in that area, it should get fixed in a patch just addressing that issue. Did you mention such an issue before? > The finishing urb doesn't recycle its last ITD, instead the starting urb > takes care of that. Also a different issue. The patch I posted to defer the recycling on URB completion paths suffices, given the assumptions that only completions will add to the schedule and that drivers aren't doing silly stuff like more than two URBs per frame (for a given endpoint). > IIRC it was also necessary to never change a running (USB1.1) frame's > hardware schedule... A frame is a frame is a frame; USB 2.0 didn't change that! Again, not an issue given those assumptions. > I've once succesfully tested this scheme. > It made ITD (de)scheduling a bit more complex. > Good is it needs less memory and DMA bandwith. It's not clear to me what you mean by these comments. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
