On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Chris Wilson
wrote:
> On Wed, ?7 Mar 2012 19:50:45 +0800, Daniel Kurtz
> wrote:
>> There is no "disabled" port 0. ?So, don't even try to initialize/scan
>> it, etc. ?This saves a bit of time when initializing the driver, since
>> the we can avoid a 50ms timeout w
There is no "disabled" port 0. So, don't even try to initialize/scan
it, etc. This saves a bit of time when initializing the driver, since
the we can avoid a 50ms timeout waiting for a device to respond on
a port that doesn't even exist.
Similarly, don't initialize the reserved port, either.
Te
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:50:45 +0800, Daniel Kurtz
wrote:
> There is no "disabled" port 0. So, don't even try to initialize/scan
> it, etc. This saves a bit of time when initializing the driver, since
> the we can avoid a 50ms timeout waiting for a device to respond on
> a port that doesn't even
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Chris Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:50:45 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
>> There is no "disabled" port 0. So, don't even try to initialize/scan
>> it, etc. This saves a bit of time when initializing the driver, since
>> the we can avoid a 50ms timeout waiti
There is no "disabled" port 0. So, don't even try to initialize/scan
it, etc. This saves a bit of time when initializing the driver, since
the we can avoid a 50ms timeout waiting for a device to respond on
a port that doesn't even exist.
Similarly, don't initialize the reserved port, either.
Te
On Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:50:45 +0800, Daniel Kurtz wrote:
> There is no "disabled" port 0. So, don't even try to initialize/scan
> it, etc. This saves a bit of time when initializing the driver, since
> the we can avoid a 50ms timeout waiting for a device to respond on
> a port that doesn't even e
