Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 06:38:22 -0400
From: Dave Mielke <dave@mielke.cc>
To: Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu>
Cc: Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@ens-lyon.org>,
        gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-usb@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kevin.derome@epitech.eu,
        clause.andreabush@gmail.com, mengualjeanphi@free.fr
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb-core: Add MS_INTR_BINTERVAL USB quirk
Message-ID: <20170313103822.GL20039@beta.private.mielke.cc>
References: <20170313013649.GH20039@beta.private.mielke.cc>
 <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1703122139020.30930-100000@netrider.rowland.org>
 <20170313014641.GI20039@beta.private.mielke.cc>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20170313014641.GI20039@beta.private.mielke.cc>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1003
Lines: 20

[quoted lines by Alan Stern on 2017/03/12 at 21:40 -0400]

>No, I was wondering why an HID device would run at high speed.  Both
>you and Samuel implied that this was because it was a USB-2 device.  
>But that is not an adequate answer, because it is perfectly valid for a 
>USB-2 device to run at full speed.

I think I've misunderstood something about how to interpret bInterval. I'm now 
suspecting that bInterval must be interpreted the new (mocro frame) way only if 
the device is operating at least at high speed, and that, even if the device 
advertizes itself as USB 2.0, bInterval must still be interpreted the old way 
if the device is operating at full or low speed. Is that correct?

If the above is correct, how can we tell from usbfs which way to interpret 
bInterval?

-- 
Dave Mielke           | 2213 Fox Crescent | The Bible is the very Word of God.
Phone: 1-613-726-0014 | Ottawa, Ontario   | http://Mielke.cc/bible/
EMail: Dave@Mielke.cc | Canada  K2A 1H7   | http://FamilyRadio.org/