usbatm xusbatm.c,1.6,1.7

[Roman Kagan]

On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 05:41:11PM +0400, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 03:16:21PM +0200, Duncan Sands wrote:
> > I think I prefer a different approach, based on the following
> > observations: the driver *must* claim the interfaces containing
> > the rx and tx endpoints; and the driver has no use for interfaces
> > not containing the rx or the tx interface.  Thus, the driver
> > should work out which interfaces contain the rx and tx endpoints
> > and claim those.  (I notice that your patch does not check that
> > the interfaces containing the rx and tx endpoints have been
> > claimed).  So I suggest the following approach: when bind is
> > called, check if the current interface contains the rx or the
> > tx endpoint.  If not, then exit with -ENODEV.  If so, then
> > work out which interface contains the other interface.  If it
> > is a different interface, then claim it (if claiming fails,
> > then bail out with an error).
> 
> Are you trying to say that multiple interfaces can't have overlapping
> endpoints?  /me goes reread the specs...

I stand corrected.

Then your suggestion makes sense, I'll redo the thing that way.

Roman.