> From: Felipe Balbi [mailto:balbi@xxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 11:53 AM > > Hi, > > On Tue, Oct 04, 2011 at 10:44:36AM -0700, Paul Zimmerman wrote: > > > From: Alan Stern [mailto:stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2011 6:57 AM > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2011, Paul Zimmerman wrote: > > > > > > > Since bulk max packet size must always be a power of 2, we can > > > > use the 'and' operator instead of modulus. > > > > > > Just a quick observation: AFAIK, in wireless USB the bulk maxpacket > > > size does not have to be a power of 2. On the other hand, if it isn't > > > then it's not clear that the mass-storage gadgets would work. > > > > Drat, I forgot about WUSB and it's dreaded non-power-of-2 max packet > > sizes. > > > > I guess it's better not to apply the patch then, it's probably only > > a tiny optimization on any halfway modern CPU. > > that would mean that for dwc3, we would need to use a chained transfer > for the remaining bytes, right ? Meaning that we would need a 1024bytes > throw-away buffer for that, correct ? > > I'll start playing with that tomorrow and see how that could be done... > I guess I could get that finished by v3.3 Hi Felipe, Not sure what you are referring to here? dwc3 is not wireless USB, so it will be fine with or without this patch. The patch was only a small optimization, nothing more. -- Paul ��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
