On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:34 AM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Jayan John wrote:
>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> Yes, the wLength value in the Setup packet is equal to 64. "Aligned"
>> was the wrong term, multiple of 64 would be more appropriate :).
>>
>> The hid gadget driver queues a request for t
On Sat, 27 Jun 2015, Jayan John wrote:
> Thanks.
>
> Yes, the wLength value in the Setup packet is equal to 64. "Aligned"
> was the wrong term, multiple of 64 would be more appropriate :).
>
> The hid gadget driver queues a request for the transfer. Please see below
> logs..
> ...
> HID: driver
On Sun, 28 Jun 2015, Ruslan Bilovol wrote:
> > Weren't you going to replace this loop with a simple list_del()? IIRC,
> > this is the third time I have asked you to make this change.
>
> I understand the improvement that replacing this loop with a list_del()
> may bring for us, but I disagree wi
Hi Alan,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2015, Ruslan Bilovol wrote:
>
>> Change behavior during registration of gadgets and
>> gadget drivers in udc-core. Instead of previous
>> approach when for successful probe of usb gadget driver
>> at least one usb gadget
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 09:31 +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 12:18:27AM -0500, Peter Berger wrote:
> > On Mon, 2015-06-22 at 11:43 +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 06:43:35AM -0500, Peter E. Berger wrote:
> > > > From: "Peter E. Berger"
> > > >
> > > >
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 08:29:16AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > > I thought udev used a whitelist of devices known to work okay with
> > > autosuspend. Does it really turn on autosuspend for _every_ USB HID
> > > device that is marked as remov
Hi Krzysztof,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Krzysztof Opasiak
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On 06/23/2015 12:01 AM, Ruslan Bilovol wrote:
>>
>> Now when udc-core supports binding to specific UDC by passing
>> its name via 'udc_name' member of usb_gadget_driver struct,
>> switch to this generic approach.
On Fri, 2015-06-26 at 22:40 +0300, Tal Shorer wrote:
> It won't break, but this will make me compile something I don't need
> and may not want.
> Wouldn't it make more sense to put this unified code in a new file
> (maybe drivers/usb/class/cdc.c) and have all related drivers depend on
> that instea