Yauheni Kaliuta wrote: > I like the submitted driver, well done! But I think we really should agree > some design issues. I mostly interested in the gadget driver, you are in > the host one (and actually I started to do the host part only because I did > not have any implementation around), but I think we should share as much as > possible. Yes, agree - let's work together on this. > So, I think we should > > 1) agree about generic (spec related) includes at > least. It affects implementation a bit, because we use data types > differently. I prefer my approach, because it fits the existing kernel > code, I think. Yes, we need to agree on using the same data types where applicable. > 2) It would be very very good, if we agree about common ncm-protocol > related code/includes. The code is already a bit factorized. Factorizing it more so that the gadget and device can use shared encoding and decoding would be good. > Should take into account, should we support other > parts of protocol, like 32bits and so on (I tried to do it, but may be > we should drop it?). 16 bit header allows transfers up to 64K. It should be sufficient for most of USB 2.0 devices. Support for 32 bit could be added later, when basic 16-bit functionality is done and in to the kernel and USB 3.0 is taking off. > 3) Discuss the actual implementation. Very good, please review and come with specific feedback. If you have updated versions of your code please share it with us. Regards Sjur Brændeland Hans Petter Selasky -- 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
