<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en-gb">
	<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://forums.obdev.at/app.php/feed/topic/5280" />

	<title>Objective Development Forums</title>
	
	<link href="https://forums.obdev.at/index.php" />
	<updated>2010-12-17T06:48:03+02:00</updated>

	<author><name><![CDATA[Objective Development Forums]]></name></author>
	<id>https://forums.obdev.at/app.php/feed/topic/5280</id>

		<entry>
		<author><name><![CDATA[nisseman]]></name></author>
		<updated>2010-12-17T06:48:03+02:00</updated>

		<published>2010-12-17T06:48:03+02:00</published>
		<id>https://forums.obdev.at/viewtopic.php?t=5280&amp;p=17063#p17063</id>
		<link href="https://forums.obdev.at/viewtopic.php?t=5280&amp;p=17063#p17063"/>
		<title type="html"><![CDATA[Lying about endpoints?]]></title>

		
		<content type="html" xml:base="https://forums.obdev.at/viewtopic.php?t=5280&amp;p=17063#p17063"><![CDATA[
Hi.<br />I am in the process of writing the device code for a usb-device that needs to match the existing specifications<br />of a driver.<br />This driver expects 4 bulk/interrupt endpoints. Two in each direction.<br />The driver only uses three of those, two down and one up.<br />Is is possible to lie in the configuration-response and simply claim that &quot;yes sure two down and two up&quot; and then never<br />care about the superfluous and non-existant endpoint?<br /><br />kindly Nisseman<p>Statistics: Posted by <a href="https://forums.obdev.at/memberlist.php?mode=viewprofile&amp;u=4726">nisseman</a> — Fri Dec 17, 2010 6:48 am</p><hr />
]]></content>
	</entry>
	</feed>
