On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Iain Hibbert wrote:

> Sorry for delay, I've been ENOTIME. I'm away from home until wednesday so
> I can't doublecheck the spec, but as far as I recall this means that the
> bluetooth code is not at fault, the usb stack has given us an 80 byte
> transfer which IIRC is supposed to be a single packet, but that when we
> examine the (4 byte) packet header we find there should have only been 12
> bytes of packet payload.

my memory was fine, the spec does say that the bluetooth packet is
supposed to be contained in a single USB transaction. I wonder if packets
are being catenated somehow, can you post the output when the attached
patch is applied to ubt.c?

thanks,
iain