Hi, Felipe Ferreri Tonello <eu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >>> On 30/03/16 13:33, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: >>>> On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote: >>>>> a USB packet, right. that's correct. But a struct usb_request can >>>>> point to whatever size buffer it wants and UDC is required to split >>>>> that into wMaxPacketSize transfers. >>>> >>>> D’oh. Of course. Disregard all my comments on the patch (except for >>>> Ack). >>>> >>> >>> I didn't really get it. Does that mean that if buflen is multiple of >>> wMaxPacketSize, the UDC driver should fit as many [DATA] packets into >>> one usb_request and call complete() or it will always call complete() on >>> each [DATA] packet, thus not requiring buflen at all? >>> >>> Does that mean that we can still use buflen and this patch is still >>> valid? (besides the endianess issue that was addressed on v2) >> >> if you have e.g. 2048 bytes of data to transfer and wMaxPacketSize is >> e.g. 256 bytes, the UDC controller is required to do whatever it needs >> to do to transfer 2048 bytes (or less if there's a short packet). >> >> You don't need to break these 2048 bytes into several requests yourself, >> the UDC is required to do that for the gadget. > > Right, what about OUT endpoints? also applicable -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
