On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 16:35:17 +0100, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > On Fri, 28 Jan 2011, Michal Nazarewicz wrote: > > > >> On Fri, 28 Jan 2011 14:42:01 +0100, Maulik Mankad > >> <mankad.maulik@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> > Note that wIndex passed from USB CV is 0x0 while fsg->interface_number > >> > is 0x2 (since UMS is interface 2). > > > >> > Why is the interface_number incorrectly sent by USBCV? Any pointers > >> > will be really helpful. > > > > Try contacting people at the USB Interface Forum (www.usb.org). They > > are responsible for the USBCV tests. > > Still, if wIndex is zero then MSF should never get called since it's under > index 2 in cdev->config->interfaces array and not at index zero (wIndex & > 0xff > is taken as an index of the array). Right. That was the point of the original message. The test failed because MSF didn't respond correctly, because it didn't get called, because the test's setup packet had the wrong wIndex value. 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
