30 Apr
2012
30 Apr
'12
1:06 p.m.
In article <4F9E7874.11091.8A5EE9 at cclist.sydex.com>,
"Chuck Guzis" <cclist at sydex.com> writes:
On 30 Apr 2012 at 14:14, David Riley wrote:
None of this is making sense to me.
Please clarify what you mean by these terms in this context:
"polled nature"
"asymmetric"
"half-duplex"
...and it would help that instead of just rephrasing in another
euphamism, you would say exactly what it is about USB that matters
here.
--
"The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" free book
<http://tinyurl.com/d3d-pipeline>
The Computer Graphics Museum <http://computergraphicsmuseum.org>
The Terminals Wiki <http://terminals.classiccmp.org>
Legalize Adulthood! (my blog) <http://legalizeadulthood.wordpress.com>
On Apr 30, 2012, at 2:03 PM, Cameron Kaiser
wrote:
Yes, I suppose "asymmetric" would have been a better term. It's
not peer-to-peer like serial ports or 1394 are, which is what would
make it nearly useless for kernel debug; that's before you get to
issues of protocol stack, which 1394 gets away with by using DMA on
the controller, which is questionable from a security standpoint but
great for kernel debug.
Or perhaps "half-duplex", although USB 3.0 claims full-duplex
capability. > [...]
because USB is
> one-way
Since when?
I think David is referring to its polled nature.