[iPAQ] RE: [BK PATCH] USB device support for 2.5.8

Jamey.Hicks@compaq.com wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Eric Benard / FREE [mailto:ebenard@free.fr]
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 5:47 AM
> > To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk
> > Cc: ipaq@handhelds.org; familiar@handhelds.org;
> > qpe-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [BK PATCH] USB device support for 2.5.8
> >
> >
> > talking about the new usb driver submited to 2.5.8 kernel source tree,
> > Stuart Lynne wrote:
> > > In article <1018999655.3437@whiskey.enposte.net>,
> > > The network function is compatible with a commercial Windows driver
> > > available from MCCI. This is important because few commercial =
> products
> > > will ship without a compatible Windows driver being available.
> > >
> >
> > does this mean Linux kernel tree must be adapted to
> > commercial drivers for Windows ?
> >
> >
> > Shouldn't that be the windows drivers to be adapted to existing Linux
> > drivers which seems to work fine (at least with a Linux host) ?
>
> If we can't find someone to write a Windows host driver that works with =
> the Linux peripheral driver, then maybe we'll have more sucess finding =
> someone to make a Linux driver that works with an existing Windows =
> driver. Better yet would be to make one that works with a standard USB =
> class driver CDC Ethernet, iirc.

Isn't there a problem with there being too few supported endpoints on the
SA1110 to be able to emulate a commercial USB Ethernet adaptor ?

The Pegasus controller seems to be the most widely used but it has 4
endpoints.

> > More general question (that's why I include handhelds.org & qpe-devel
> > mailing lists) : is a Windows driver for actual usb-eth driver of any
> > interest for linux-arm community ?
>
> This would definitely be of interest.

It would be nicer still if a matching peripheral driver could be done for
WinCE as well.

Robert Swindells
Received on Wed Apr 17 13:26:52 2002