Re: Call for testing of ehci(4), ohci(4), slhci(4), uhci(4) data toggle patch

[Yorick Hardy <yorickhardy%gmail.com@localhost>]

On 2010-04-27, Matthias Drochner wrote:
> 
> yorickhardy%gmail.com@localhost said:
> > Can you try the patch below?
> 
> I didn't test yet, but wouldn't it look better to avoid the
> array which will be used only sparsely, and use some
> linked list or so instead? The per-device bitfield could be
> put into something device-specific, perhaps close to
> the default control pipe.

Yes, I had thought to do that. I was looking for an easy
solution to make sure that all problems are resolved first.

Perhaps the best place is in struct usbd_device?
Storing the toggle status here may be misleading
since for example uhci and ehci update the toggle
after transferring a number of packets, not
necessarily for each one, and ohci would only update
the toggle status on closing a pipe (assuming the
last patch is correct).

> 
> best regards
> Matthias
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Forschungszentrum Juelich GmbH
> 52425 Juelich
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Juelich
> Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Dueren Nr. HR B 3498
> Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDir'in Baerbel Brumme-Bothe
> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
> Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender), Prof. Dr.-Ing. Harald Bolt,
> Prof. Dr. Sebastian M. Schmidt
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Kind regards,

Yorick Hardy