[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH V3] usb: gadget: bcm63xx UDC driver

To: Kevin Cernekee <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] usb: gadget: bcm63xx UDC driver
From: Alan Stern <>
Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:48:54 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
In-reply-to: <>
List-archive: <>
List-help: <>
List-id: linux-mips <>
List-owner: <>
List-post: <>
List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0
List-subscribe: <>
List-unsubscribe: <>
On Sat, 25 Aug 2012, Kevin Cernekee wrote:

> I am hoping that these invalid SET_CONFIGURATION / SET_INTERFACE
> requests are uncommon.  In what sorts of situations will a host
> request a configuration that isn't advertised in the device's
> descriptors?  I had trouble just convincing usb_set_interface() /
> usb_driver_set_configuration() to send such a request because they
> honor bInterfaceNumber / bConfigurationValue from the descriptors.

A request doesn't have to be invalid to fail.  Valid requests can fail
for all sorts of reasons.  -ENOMEM is the prototypical example.

Alan Stern

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>