Re: uvcvideo failure under xHCI

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:18:39AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thursday 16 June 2011 22:20:22 Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Sarah Sharp wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:39:11PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > > That's appropriate.  But nobody should ever set an isochronous URB's
> > > > status field to -EPROTO, no matter whether the device is connected or
> > > > not and no matter whether the host controller is alive or not.
> > > 
> > > But the individual frame status be set to -EPROTO, correct?  That's what
> > > Alex was told to do when an isochronous TD had a completion code of
> > > "Incompatible Device Error".
> > 
> > Right.  -EPROTO is a perfectly reasonable code for a frame's status.
> > But not for an isochronous URB's status.  There's no reason for
> > uvcvideo to test for it.
> 
> The uvcvideo driver tests for -EPROTO for interrupt URBs only. For isochronous 
> URBs it tests for -ENOENT, -ECONNRESET and -ESHUTDOWN.

So is uvc_status_complete() shared between interrupt and isochronous
URBs then?

Sarah Sharp
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Input]     [Video for Linux]     [Gstreamer Embedded]     [Mplayer Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux