On maanantai 22 helmikuu 2010 21:10:33 Alan Stern wrote: > On Mon, 22 Feb 2010, Anssi Hannula wrote: > > I guess that would suggest that the device doesn't allow the > > initialization data to be broken into packets arbitrarily (though some > > differences seem allowed, as the windows driver transmits them > > differently). > > > > Does this mean a tty interface is ill-suited for the microcode upload, > > and instead qcserial should use the kernel's generic microcode upload > > mechanism or the userspace should use libusb to do it? > > I don't know. Didn't the old successful code use a tty interface? Yes, but does the tty interface guarantee that the data of one write call is sent as one packet to the device? If I understood this correctly, it seems the changes have caused it to now concatenate short writes into one packet, which the device doesn't seem to like. -- Anssi Hannula -- 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
