On Mon, 3 Nov 2014, Breton M. Saunders wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
>Thanks again for your help.
>
>I think my understanding of the bulk transfer protocol was
> incorrectly confused with my previous work on control transfers. It
> looks like there is no concept of "transfer" vs "transaction" i
On 01/11/2014 15:05, Alan Stern wrote:
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014, Breton M. Saunders wrote:
This is required behavior, for example, during the data phase of a
bulk-only mass-storage transfer. The specification states that under
certain circumstances, the device _must_ send a zero-length packet on
its
On Sat, 1 Nov 2014, Breton M. Saunders wrote:
> > This is required behavior, for example, during the data phase of a
> > bulk-only mass-storage transfer. The specification states that under
> > certain circumstances, the device _must_ send a zero-length packet on
> > its bulk-IN endpoint.
>
> Hi
On 31/10/14 14:23, Alan Stern wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014, Peter Stuge wrote:
Breton M. Saunders wrote:
Are zero length transfers from a device to the PC on a bulk endpoint
sensible?
I don't see how they could be.
If the device has no data to send it responds with a NAK handshake.
If the dev
On Fri, 31 Oct 2014, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Breton M. Saunders wrote:
> > Are zero length transfers from a device to the PC on a bulk endpoint
> > sensible?
>
> I don't see how they could be.
>
> If the device has no data to send it responds with a NAK handshake.
>
> If the device has data to se
Breton M. Saunders wrote:
> Are zero length transfers from a device to the PC on a bulk endpoint
> sensible?
I don't see how they could be.
If the device has no data to send it responds with a NAK handshake.
If the device has data to send it responds with the data.
//Peter
--
To unsubscribe f
Hi All,
I want to ask what the correct USB behavior should be for a gadget
attempting to perform a zero byte transfer (note transfer, not
transaction) on a bulk-in endpoint should be:
Background:
* Basically I've got a hacked up kernel; hardware is TI omap dm3730
(an overo gumstix bo
