Hi, On 06/24/2014 03:35 PM, Antonio Ospite wrote: > On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 16:27:59 +0200 > Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> Hi Antonio, >> >> Thanks for working on this. >> >> On 06/04/2014 10:24 PM, Antonio Ospite wrote: >>> Add a xfer_ep_index field to struct gspca_dev, and change alt_xfer() so >>> that it accepts a parameter which represents a specific endpoint to look >>> for. >>> >>> If a subdriver wants to specify a value for gspca_dev->xfer_ep_index it >>> can do that in its sd_config() callback. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Antonio Ospite <ao2@xxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> I am not sure if it is OK to specify an endpoint _index_ or if it would be >>> better to specify the endpoint address directly (in Kinect 0x81 is for video >>> data and 0x82 is for depth data). >>> >>> Hans, any comment on that? >> >> I think it would be better to use the endpoint address directly for this, >> relying on the order in which the endpoints are listed in the descriptor >> feels wrong to me. >> > > I see. > > If I declare the new field as __u8 (same type of a bEndpointAddress), I > could mark an invalid ep address with ~(USB_ENDPOINT_DIR_MASK | > USB_ENDPOINT_NUMBER_MASK) in gspca_dev_probe2(), instead of using an > int set to -1; how does that sound? I would prefer an int with a simple -1 value of invalid. Regards, Hans -- 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
