From owner-freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Wed Dec 26 16:33:03 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D815135608A for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:03 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (mailman.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::50:5]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF3E8892AE for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) id 725721356089; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:02 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: usb@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60C191356088 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 002C9892AC for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org (kenobi.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::16:76]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mxrelay.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 443DF18533 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: from kenobi.freebsd.org ([127.0.1.118]) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id wBQGX1ga036627 for ; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:01 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) Received: (from www@localhost) by kenobi.freebsd.org (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id wBQGX1OC036624 for usb@FreeBSD.org; Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:01 GMT (envelope-from bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org) X-Authentication-Warning: kenobi.freebsd.org: www set sender to bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org using -f From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: usb@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 234380] [snd_uaudio] Sample rate detection fails for SPL Crimson Rev 1 Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:01 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: Base System X-Bugzilla-Component: usb X-Bugzilla-Version: 12.0-RELEASE X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: Affects Only Me X-Bugzilla-Who: dev@submerge.ch X-Bugzilla-Status: New X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: --- X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: usb@FreeBSD.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:33:03 -0000 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D234380 --- Comment #3 from Florian Walpen --- (In reply to commit-hook from comment #2) Thanks, much appreciated. I can confirm that this commit works as intended and fixes the issues with sample rate detection on the Crimson. Unfortunately I cannot test it with my other devices since they are all USB 1.1 only. The code looks robust to me functionality-wise, I think both the fallback to the old behavior (request ~255 bytes) and the support for longer tables are good ideas, I didn't consider that in my patch. Some comments if I may: 1. The comment for the fallback ("Likely the descriptor...") is confusing to me. Isn't that the case for devices that either don't support a request for only one row or don't support the request type at all? 2. Using the error code as a condition for the second request is a bit misleading I think, wouldn't it be easier to just check for 'rates > 1'? Th= at would make the code shorter and the intention more understandable. But these are minor issues, I'm happy with fixing it either way. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=