On 10/09/2014 01:59 PM, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: > W dniu 08.10.2014 o 15:06, Felipe Balbi pisze: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 01:32:31PM +0200, Andrzej Pietrasiewicz wrote: >>> Some not-so-well-behaving USB hosts with a popular proprietary operating >>> system sometimes issue per-device requests even though they mean requests >>> for a particular function, e.g. for ptp (picture transfer protocol). >> >> which request would that be ? >> > > Well, in fact I was misinformed by someone. The situation described above > does not happen, so this patch is attempting to solve a nonexistent problem. > In fact this patch solves in some way the problem 'who should handle requests addressed to device?'. Since we have defined usb functions as instances which contains gadget logic, we can appoint one function to handle requests addressed to device (selected function in configuration performing device role). For now setup requests addressed to device are already handled by function, but only when it is the only function in configuration. Otherwise requests are refused. This patch makes it possible to choose function to which requests will be routed, when we have many functions in configuration. I find it to be good way to handle them. Best regards, Robert Baldyga -- 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
