Re: [PATCH] usb-core bInterval quirks

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

 



A: No.
Q: Should I include quotations after my reply?

http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top

On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 11:48:48AM -0400, James Michels wrote:
> The Razer reports a bInterval of 8 which the current driver ultimately
> interprets as 16ms. The keyboard is an anti-ghosting gaming keyboard
> and needs to be polled at 1ms. This corresponds to a corrected
> bInterval of 4.

Why do you think it "needs" to be polled at 1ms?  If the hardware says
to poll it at 16ms, why are we to disbelieve this?

And can you really see the hardware responding in that type of interval
timeframe?  Hint, just because you poll faster, doesn't mean the device
actually responds faster :)

> Currently, the driver tries to guess if the bInterval is reported in
> exponent or frames and simply can not get it right all the time. As in
> this case, 8 looks like it's in exponent for, but it's not.

There should not be any "guessing" here, the USB spec defines this
pretty specifically.  What are we getting wrong in our logic that
requires a "guess"?

thanks,

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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux