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
