On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 07:01:10PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > On Friday 17 June 2011 18:46:20 Sarah Sharp wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 10:18:39AM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > > > On Thursday 16 June 2011 22:20:22 Alan Stern wrote: > > > > On Thu, 16 Jun 2011, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:39:11PM -0400, Alan Stern wrote: > > > > > > That's appropriate. But nobody should ever set an isochronous > > > > > > URB's status field to -EPROTO, no matter whether the device is > > > > > > connected or not and no matter whether the host controller is > > > > > > alive or not. > > > > > > > > > > But the individual frame status be set to -EPROTO, correct? That's > > > > > what Alex was told to do when an isochronous TD had a completion > > > > > code of "Incompatible Device Error". > > > > > > > > Right. -EPROTO is a perfectly reasonable code for a frame's status. > > > > But not for an isochronous URB's status. There's no reason for > > > > uvcvideo to test for it. > > > > > > The uvcvideo driver tests for -EPROTO for interrupt URBs only. For > > > isochronous URBs it tests for -ENOENT, -ECONNRESET and -ESHUTDOWN. > > > > So is uvc_status_complete() shared between interrupt and isochronous > > URBs then? > > No, uvc_status_complete() handles status URBs (interrupt only), and > uvc_video_complete() handles video URBs (isochronous or bulk, depending on the > device). Huh, that's very odd then. I could have sworn I was getting missed service interval events (which are only for isochronous transfers) and then seeing the "Non-zero" message. And the userspace video definitely froze before my patch and did not freeze after the patch was applied. I'll have to look more closely at the logs. Sarah Sharp -- 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
