On Monday 14 January 2008, Geoff Levand wrote:
> On 01/13/2008 09:36 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> > Yes, please. The appended patch is that updated version.
> >
> > === CUT HERE
> > From: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > This adds a workaround for an issue reported with ISO tran
@ Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 08:10:51PM +0100, olecom:
> == Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 05:48:01PM +, Alan Cox ==
> > > > Please run this through scripts/checkpatch.pl first and fix all of those
> > > > warnings.
> > >
> > > How nice, you have time to write this to me. I wonder how frequently you
> > > did
On 01/13/2008 09:36 AM, David Brownell wrote:
> Yes, please. The appended patch is that updated version.
>
> === CUT HERE
> From: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> This adds a workaround for an issue reported with ISO transfers
> on some EHCI controllers, most recently with VIA KT
I should mention one additional item - the kozio diagnostics we
run in manufacturing ** CAN ** write/read a block from an external
thumb drive...
-Original Message-
From: Morrison, Tom
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:19 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Pr
On Monday 14 January 2008, Vijay Ramamurthi wrote:
> Thanks for the response David,
> but somehow I want to recover, I use the asynchronous, usb_submit_urb call and
> the call back never returns...
>
> any idea why that would happen, I have no visibility beyond my layer...!
>
> when would the hos
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 20:27 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> Plus what is the rq->nr_sectors > sdp->sector_size /
> >>> 512 test supposed to be doing? that being true is supposed to be a
> >>> guarantee of the block layer (and if something goes wrong there's a
> >>> chec
Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 01:21:51PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
>> Stefan Richter wrote:
>>> would you please explain like I asked you:
>>> - what is wrong with the current solution which tells the user to
>>> first enable SCSI to get the USB_STORAGE option,
>>> - whether there a
James Bottomley wrote:
Plus what is the rq->nr_sectors > sdp->sector_size /
512 test supposed to be doing? that being true is supposed to be a
guarantee of the block layer (and if something goes wrong there's a
check for this lower down).
It first is was just:
rq->nr_sectors > 1
Then I change
Matthew Dharm wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:33:08AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 08:03 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote:
We may be able to convince the SCSI people to enable it for all devices,
regardless of HCD.
No ... I'm not particularly keen to have enterprise vendors
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 19:37 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 08:03 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:46:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >>> Guillaume Bedot wrote:
> But it fixes only two models.
> Do you think oth
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:33:08AM -0600, James Bottomley wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 08:03 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> > We may be able to convince the SCSI people to enable it for all devices,
> > regardless of HCD.
>
> No ... I'm not particularly keen to have enterprise vendors after my
James Bottomley wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 08:03 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:46:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
>> > Guillaume Bedot wrote:
>> > >Will this be possible to use "LAST_SECTOR_BUG" quirk for testing without
>> > >recompiling a kernel ?
>> >
>> > This
James Bottomley wrote:
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 08:03 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote:
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:46:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
Guillaume Bedot wrote:
But it fixes only two models.
Do you think other devices (hp or not) can be impacted ?
There are hundreds of models with card rea
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 01:21:51PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Stefan Richter wrote:
> > Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 01:20:46PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > >> Greg KH wrote:
> > >>> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:40:38PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> > Reorganize USB Kconfig Menu, and move
> Hm, no, the intrusion into the driver is just too much this late in
the
> release cycle to allow this.
>
> Now I will be glad to only add the new device ids for the devices that
> do not rely on the new changes right now, but that's it.
>
> So, right now I have a separate patch split out of your
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 08:03 -0800, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:46:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > Guillaume Bedot wrote:
> > >But it fixes only two models.
> > >Do you think other devices (hp or not) can be impacted ?
> > >There are hundreds of models with card readers o
Thanks for the response David,
but somehow I want to recover, I use the asynchronous, usb_submit_urb call and
the call back never returns...
any idea why that would happen, I have no visibility beyond my layer...!
when would the host, think the device is dead? no of PINGS? what is
the condition u
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 10:46:56AM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Guillaume Bedot wrote:
> >But it fixes only two models.
> >Do you think other devices (hp or not) can be impacted ?
> >There are hundreds of models with card readers only for hp :
> >http://hplip.sourceforge.net/supported_devices/comb
On 02/01/08 04:48, Matthew Dharm wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 04:55:21PM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007, Bruce Schultz wrote:
>>
>>> I have a USB SD card reader which has never worked properly and finally got
>>> me
>>> annoyed enough to try to do something about it.
Stefan Richter wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 01:20:46PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> >> Greg KH wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jan 05, 2008 at 06:40:38PM +0300, Al Boldi wrote:
> Reorganize USB Kconfig Menu, and move USB_GADGET out into the Device
> Driver Menu. ?This helps the US
Guillaume Bedot wrote:
I have tested this time with two PSC 1610 printers, and two SD cards,
the same bug occured without the patch.
And is fixed with your new patch. Good work !
Hi,
Thanks for testing!
But it fixes only two models.
Do you think other devices (hp or not) can be impacted ?
Hello,
On ven, 2008-01-11 at 21:14 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > Yes, you're right. in ULDs it is a much proper way to do this.
> >
> > So I guess you'll have to do that special host flag or device
> > flag, and add a check for it in sd.c. You'll see that sd.c is
> > alre
22 matches
Mail list logo
