Hi Balbi,

On 04/04/16 11:46, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Felipe Ferreri Tonello <eu@felipetonello.com> writes:
>>>> On 30/03/16 13:33, Michal Nazarewicz wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 30 2016, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>>>>>> a USB packet, right. that's correct. But a struct usb_request can
>>>>>> point to whatever size buffer it wants and UDC is required to split
>>>>>> that into wMaxPacketSize transfers.
>>>>>
>>>>> D’oh.  Of course.  Disregard all my comments on the patch (except for
>>>>> Ack).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't really get it. Does that mean that if buflen is multiple of
>>>> wMaxPacketSize, the UDC driver should fit as many [DATA] packets into
>>>> one usb_request and call complete() or it will always call complete() on
>>>> each [DATA] packet, thus not requiring buflen at all?
>>>>
>>>> Does that mean that we can still use buflen and this patch is still
>>>> valid? (besides the endianess issue that was addressed on v2)
>>>
>>> if you have e.g. 2048 bytes of data to transfer and wMaxPacketSize is
>>> e.g. 256 bytes, the UDC controller is required to do whatever it needs
>>> to do to transfer 2048 bytes (or less if there's a short packet).
>>>
>>> You don't need to break these 2048 bytes into several requests yourself,
>>> the UDC is required to do that for the gadget.
>>
>> Right, what about OUT endpoints?
> 
> also applicable
> 

Ok, so I will make few tests here and resend a v3 probably with buflen
still.

-- 
Felipe