On Tue, 2015-06-09 at 09:46 +0200, Enrico Mioso wrote:
> ==Not another parameter please. If the alternate frames are processed as
> ==well as the current frames, all is well and we can generally produces
> ==such frames. If not, we want a black list.
>
> I would agree on this point: and I was exploring different alternatives also,
> such as having this option settable when invoking cdc_ncm_bind_common from
> huawei_cdc_ncm for example. Unfortunately, I don't feel confident we could do
> that.
Using a module parameter is simply wrong. A system can be connected to
multiple devices (in turn). As a minimum the feature must be per device.
> First of all: this driver supports more devices than Huawei ones, so I feel
> we
> have chances to break them modifying the frame structure.
In theory we must never break or impede compliant devices for
uncompliant devices. Yet I doubt we can break any device doing what
Windows does.
Does it have a standard NCM driver that works with Huawei devices?
> Even more complicated is the fact that huawei NCM devices are not easily
> distinguishable one another from the driver perspective. Some heuristics may
> be
> put in place probably, but I don't have access to old enough NCM devices to
> know best.
> The Huawei vendor driver put NDPs at end of frame - and does so for all
> devices
> in my opinion, but I can't be really sure about that.
Doesn't it have a list of supported devices?
> Not now. Anyway I can change this as desired. Would something like a sysfs
> knob
> be preferable? User-space surely has a good chance to tell us what to do here.
Not really. The answer will come from a list. The question is just
whether easier updates are worth splitting up the fix.
> ==> --- a/include/linux/usb/cdc_ncm.h
> ==> +++ b/include/linux/usb/cdc_ncm.h
> ==> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ struct cdc_ncm_ctx {
> ==> const struct usb_cdc_mbim_desc *mbim_desc;
> ==> const struct usb_cdc_mbim_extended_desc *mbim_extended_desc;
> ==> const struct usb_cdc_ether_desc *ether_desc;
> ==> + struct usb_cdc_ncm_ndp16 *delayed_ndp;
> ==
> ==What prevents you from embedding this in the structure?
> ==
> == Regards
> == Oliver
> ==
> ==
> ==
> Sorry - I think I didn't understand your ocmment here. Still, I am open to
> any
> suggestion.
Why don't you put "struct usb_cdc_ncm_ndp16 delayed_ndp" as opposed to a
pointer to it into struct cdc_ncm_ctx. You never need more than one at a
time.
Regards
Oliver
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
