Hi, On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 02:16:57PM -0600, Carsten Behling wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 08:59:39AM -0600, Carsten Behling wrote: > >>Would it help if I send a patch as a suggestion and as basis for > >>discussion? > >yes, it would also help if you didn't top-post :-) > > > So would you suggestion be to port that feature from the old > linux-2.6.32.17-psp03.01.01.39 > kernel from TI or should we rather add a tree based implementation as done > for OHCI? quite frankly, I don't know and, because of my email domain, I can't really say out loud what I really think about those old TI releases :-) IMHO, the best thing would be to completely ignore old kernels and have a critical look at that part of the code on MUSB Host. Right now, MUSB has a really brain dead endpoint allocation algorithm and it only works for bulk (dynamic allocation, that is). Interrupt and isochronous are left out of dynamic allocation which, IMHO, makes no sense what so ever. I guess the users of MUSB would benefit a whole lot more if someone were to redesign that logic altogether so that all endpoints can be dynamically allocated. One easy way to test things out is to attach a ton of hubs and several USB Serial adapters to a single MUSB port. All hubs and all USB serial adapters - of course, as long as you follow USB spec's limitation on maximum tier level and maximum number of devices. cheers -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
