On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:18:12AM +0800, Yuping Luo wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Greg KH <greg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 07:46:57PM +0800, Yuping Luo wrote: > > > Control endpoints are smaller usually, so that would make it a bit > > slower, right? > > yes, for our usb 2.0 controller, the packet size is 64 byte, however, each > data exchange between memory and device controller is bigger than 4KB. > > >> and also doubt for USB DFU specification, it's not popular as the > >> usb. Greg, since you are one of contributors for it, what do you say? > > > > I don't understand the question. Yes, I helped with the DFU spec oh so > > many years ago, but I primarily wrote the sample code that is in the end > > of the spec (with a nice bug that someone reminds me about once a year > > it seems.) > > got it, I have found your name in the spec. dfu only use the control EP,and I > am wondering why bulk EP not used for data transfer. I think because it was the least common thing that all devices were required to have. At the time, there were a lot of chips that only had control endpoints. > > What is the real issue you are having here? > > confused, > > > the usb core only allow 4KB ( 1 page for ARM arch) for each transfer, and > I have to change it to use 16KB for higher burning speed. Then use something other than DFU if that works better for you. There's no requirement to use DFU. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
