Re: Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- From: Victor <Victor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jun 2006 04:02:56 GMT
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
- Streaming on USB 2.0 bulk camera device
- Prev by Date: Re: mapping network drive - FSD
- Next by Date: Re: DIRQL vs DISPATCH (Was: Re: About the Problem with the DDK's PortIO SAMPLE.)
- 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
|