* Clemens Ladisch | 2011-07-22 10:23:58 [+0200]: >Xu, Andiry wrote: >> However, I checked USB2 LPM spec Chapt 3, which says: "Devices that >> support the BOS descriptor must have a bcdUSB value of 0201H or >> larger." >> >> Is this a conflict? > >No. > >bcdUSB < 2.01: no BOS >bcdUSB >= 2.01 and < 2.10: BOS optional >bcdUSB >= 2.10: BOS required > >> Which value should I use, 0x0201 or 0x0210? > >0x0201. Exactly. You are relaxed on parsing the descriptor then I guess it might be okay if you print an error message for >=2.10 and silently ignore it for <2.10. It is probably a question of time until we find a device that is doing something wrong :) >No sane firmware writer will allow his 2.01 device to crash when it >revceives a BOS request. >But what about the insane ones? What does Windows do? Good question. And then we have NEC that shipps drivers even for XP which might behave differently comparing to MS. >Regards, >Clemens Sebastian -- 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
