Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 1 Mar 2006 14:41:23 -0800 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: MAX_USBFS_BUFFER_SIZE |
| |
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 11:34:30PM +0100, Olivier Galibert wrote: > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 01:54:23PM -0800, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:42:35PM +0100, Ren? Rebe wrote: > > > So, queing alot URBs is the recommended way to sustain the bus? Allowing > > > way bigger buffers will not be realistic? > > > > 16Kb is "way big" in the USB scheme of things aready. Look at the size > > of your endpoint. It's probably _very_ small compared to that. So no, > > larger buffer sizes is not realistic at all. > > As a data point, I have traces of a scanner session including a > download of a 26Mb binary image using 524288 bytes logical blocks > physically transferred with 61440 bytes bulk_in frames. Seems stable > enough. IIRC the scanner-side controller chip has some advanced > buffering just to handle that kind of bandwidth.
That's impressive. What are the endpoint sizes on the device that did this?
thanks,
greg k-h - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |