Re: file_storage.c vs f_mass_storage.c - why some devices cannot see storage that uses f_mass_storage.c

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, 13 Sep 2010, Zachary Burke wrote:

> > Do you specify a "file" module parameter? Or just leave it as removable?
> When loading the file_storage module, I do use the "file" parameter to
> specify which device to map.  The stock Palm driver has this
> hard-coded to /dev/mapper/store-media, so I use the same.

It doesn't look like you used it in the log you sent to pastebin.com.  
Or maybe the file didn't exist.

> The full output for the bulk data can be seen below.
> Stock driver http://pastebin.com/gLjQXYfb
> Gadget driver http://pastebin.com/f1ZyDSvZ
> 
> The differences in configuration of the 2 modules seems cosmetic only,
> so I believe I need to focus on what is happening with Bo/Bi.  I am a
> little outside of my knowledge area looking at the Bo/Bi data and need
> to spend some more time studying this area and the mass storage spec.
> Any comments are welcome.

The gadget driver log shows normal operation with a backing file 
present.  The stock driver log shows normal operation with no backing 
file (a long series of Not Ready, Medium Not Present errors).

Alan Stern

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Media]     [Linux Input]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Old Linux USB Devel Archive]

  Powered by Linux