public inbox for u-boot@lists.denx.de
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Heiko Schocher <hs@denx.de>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] dfu: some wrong usb_qualifier_descriptor settings?
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 07:49:30 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53FACE6A.5010304@denx.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140822141109.14f99144@amdc2363>

Hello Lukasz,

Am 22.08.2014 14:11, schrieb Lukasz Majewski:
> Hi Heiko,
>
>> Hello Lukasz,
>>
>> In the dfu spez [1] chapter 4.2.1 the following fields are specified:
>>
>> bDeviceClass = 00h (Description: ?see interface?), currently set in
>> U-Boot to 2.
>>
>> bDeviceSubClass = 00h (Description: ?see interface?), currently set in
>> U-Boot to 2.
>>
>> bcdUSB = xxxxh (Description: USB specification release number in
>> binary coded decimal ->  0110h) Currently set to 0x200
>>
>> If I look in ./drivers/usb/gadget/f_dfu.c:
>>
>> static const struct usb_qualifier_descriptor dev_qualifier = {
>>           .bLength =              sizeof dev_qualifier,
>>           .bDescriptorType =      USB_DT_DEVICE_QUALIFIER,
>>           .bcdUSB =               __constant_cpu_to_le16(0x0200),
>>           .bDeviceClass =         USB_CLASS_VENDOR_SPEC,
>>           .bNumConfigurations =   1,
>> };
>>
>> bDeviceClass = USB_CLASS_VENDOR_SPEC = 0xff ?
>>
>>     Hmm... why states the doc this should be set to 0 =
>> USB_CLASS_PER_INTERFACE? 2 is USB_CLASS_COMM ... which seems more
>> appropriate ...
>
> The bDeviceClass seems to be set to wrong value. I think that it should
> have values as they are specified by the standard.
>
>>
>> bDeviceSubClass is not defined ...
>> bcdUSB = 0x0200 which should be 0x0110 ... oh, as [1] is the dfu 1.1
>> specification it should be 0x0110 but the spec [1] says 0100 ... is
>> the spec here buggy? is there a dfu 2.0 specification availiable?
>
> The 2.0 value is a reminiscent of the original DFU code (once prepared
> for Linux) and was wrongly set to indicate USB 2.0.
>
> I think that we should have 0x0110, which indicates supported DFU
> version 1.1.
>
>>
>> Has this differences to the spec some reason? Or can we change them
>> to the values specified in the spec?
>
> I think that values which you have pointed out are wrong and should be
> changed to the one from spec.

Thanks! Changed. I send a patch soon.

bye,
Heiko
-- 
DENX Software Engineering GmbH,     MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany

      reply	other threads:[~2014-08-25  5:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-08-21  5:25 [U-Boot] dfu: some wrong usb_qualifier_descriptor settings? Heiko Schocher
2014-08-22 12:11 ` Lukasz Majewski
2014-08-25  5:49   ` Heiko Schocher [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=53FACE6A.5010304@denx.de \
    --to=hs@denx.de \
    --cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox