Re: Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- From: Victor <Victor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 09:45:04 -0700
Yes, 1394 is a better choice. For short term solution, it is not a viable
option for me. Due to hardware limitation, I can only use one IN data
endpoint. Is there anyone that can tell me how I can queue multiple IRPs to
lower driver for bulk transfer so as not to intermit data stream from camera
onto USB bus. Thanks.
Victor
"r_konjeti@xxxxxxxxxxxx" wrote:
> I am not expert in USB, but I have an idea for your bulk. Is it not
> possbile to send one Irp per bulk end point. If so, why not have two
> bulk endpoints and alternately transfer data on two bulk OUT endpoints
> from camera.
>
> As Maxim suggested 1394 is best approach if you are thinking on future
> expansion also. 1394b can provide 800Mbps, but Microsoft drivers
> support only upto 1394a speeds. This will be big project with big
> change if you want to write your own Windows 1394 driver.
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- From: Zhou
- Re: Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- References:
- Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- From: Victor
- Re: Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- From: Maxim S. Shatskih
- Re: Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- From: r_konjeti
- Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- Prev by Date: Re: mapping network drive - FSD
- Next by Date: Re: Sample Bitmap Driver in LDK
- Previous by thread: Re: Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- Next by thread: Re: Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|