On 09/15/11 10:36, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 15 September 2011 08:33, Gerd Hoffmann<kra...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 09/14/11 19:48, Peter Maydell wrote:
Honour the maximum packet size for endpoints; this applies when
sending non-isochronous data and means we transfer only as
much as the endpoint allows, leaving the transfer descriptor
on the list for another go next time around. This allows
usb-net to work when connected to an OHCI controller model.
Hmm, I'd tend to fix it the other way around: Fix usb-net to deal with
transfers larger than the endpoint packet size. What do you think?
Honouring maximum packet size is mandated by the OHCI spec:
see section 4.3.1.3.2 "Packet Size" in OHCI specification 1.0a.
Our failure to do it is just a bug in our controller model.
No. What I think is that USBPacket shouldn't be required to be an
actual USB packet, but a transfer, i.e. do the splitting of larger
transfers into smaller packets in the usb driver emulation (if needed),
not the host adapter emulation.
Maybe it is a good idea to rename USBPacket to USBTransfer to make that
clear.
> If you want to make our usb-net implementation permit and
> advertise a larger max-packet-size (and test it for
> interoperability with a pile of OSes :-)) that's a different
> thing.
Also add usb 2.0 support while being at it.
But that is another story ...
cheers,
Gerd
