USB Over IP Documentation
in [Device Drivers]
|
Prev: Thomas F. Divine
Next: WinDDK is not building samples
From: Don Burn on 3 May 2010 09:36 You have never stated the problem the client is trying to solve. Is it that they need a generic USB over IP solution, a specific device or what? There are hardware devices that do the full USB or IP, since the interface for the USB bus controller is well defined. If you need a single device, there is the Device Simulation Framework which could be slow, but lets you simulate a USB device. If it is a specific class of device such as storage, perhaps the solution is to intercept at the well know interfaces above the specific class. What you are proposing is something that has happened in other stacks. For instance Microsoft only had SCSI miniport drivers and those of us who wanted have storage over something strange had to do the same thing. Many of us bought source code solutions from consulting firms but we realized that every change by Microsoft might mean our clients were stuck until someone reverse engineered the change. Now my client who I did this for understood the problem, but many firms got sold a solution that they did not realize would take a large part of an employee's time each year to keep up, and that they would rarely be there right when a new OS came in. So before you state you have solve the problem, have you told them the problems you are creating for them? Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD) Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting Website: http://www.windrvr.com Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr > -----Original Message----- > From: anshul makkar [mailto:anshul.makkar.maillist(a)gmail.com] > Posted At: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:20 AM > Posted To: microsoft.public.development.device.drivers > Conversation: USB Over IP Documentation > Subject: Re: USB Over IP Documentation > > Don, I will implement it and make it stable. And that's what my client and > people all over look at - new innovative solution and that's what I will give > them. (irrespective of all the problems that I may face.). > > - I can only assume that you are someone whose firm should be avoided at all > costs. > Anshul: one can say whatever one wants to, but I have my growth and my > clients in mind and I know how to meet them. (And If I give them what they > desire , these kind of statements won't effect them). > > Thanks for the suggestion. > Anshul Makkar > www.justkernel.com > anshul_makkar(a)justkernel.com > > On May 3, 5:19�pm, "Don Burn" <b...(a)stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote: > > If Microsoft say YES to giving you the documentation they face the > > situation of locking down an interface. �This is a challenge that most > > OS vendors of the last 50 years or so have faced. �Microsoft may feel > > they do not have a stable interface for stack, remember right now this > > is a contract between Microsoft drivers only. > > > > Yes you can reverse engineer it, but do not blame Microsoft for the > > problems of your trying to reproduce an undocumented interface that > > can change out from under you at any bug fix or update. �THE DECISION > > TO MAKE A DRIVER THAT IS UNLIKELY TO EVER BE STABLE IS YOURS, AND A > > PROFESSIONAL RECOGNIZES THEIR RESPONSIBILITES. �So if you persist in > > trying to blame Microsoft, I can only assume that you are someone > > whose firm should be avoided at all costs. > > > > Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD) > > Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting > > Website:http://www.windrvr.com Blog:http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: anshul makkar [mailto:anshul.makkar.maill...(a)gmail.com] > > > > > Don, If Microsoft says NO, that can't stop someone to do what one > > wants to do. > > > > > What will be the end result , MS will again suffer when substandard > > drivers > > > (built due to lack of support) will be running along with Windows > > which may > > > lead to problems/crashes in OS. > > > > > Thanks > > > Anshul Makkar > > >www.justkernel.com > > > anshul_mak...(a)justkernel.com > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 5082 (20100503) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com >
From: Chris on 3 May 2010 10:25 On May 2, 11:03 pm, anshul makkar <anshul.makkar.maill...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Don, If Microsoft says NO, that can't stop someone to do what one > wants to do. Yes, they most surely can: WHQL. > What will be the end result , MS will again suffer when substandard > drivers (built due to lack of support) will be running along with > Windows which may lead to problems/crashes in OS. No they won't (see above).
From: Doron Holan [MSFT] on 3 May 2010 12:58 do not create a virtual host controller, just write your own hub driver. that way you do not have to deal with reverse engineering an interface between the port and miniport, you just have to implement the public URB interface and all of the various IOCTLs and QIs. no small task either though. d -- This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. "anshul makkar" <anshul.makkar.maillist(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a9ae2b39-c5b8-4883-9aaf-6e0556c3c086(a)6g2000prg.googlegroups.com... > Hi, > > As per the documentation available (a single PDF file) to implement > USBOIP we have to implement a virtual host controller driver . > > - Virtual Host control driver will be equivalent to USB Host > Controller driver and will be responsible for handling of URBs. > - USBs will be converted to USB/IP packets and sent to remote machine > - At remote machine another application will extract URBs from USB/IP > packets and submit them to local USB drivers. > > Now according to earlier postings and other documentation , Microsoft > does not provide any support / documentation for writing host > controller driver. I may have to do lot of reverse enginnering to > decipher the functionality of USB Host Controller driver. > > So just wondering whethe the above design approach will be correct, > considering lack of support/documentation from Microsoft. > > Is there any other design approach that can be suitable ? > > Please share your views and experiences. > > -- > Thanks > Anshul Makkar > justkernel.com > anshul_makkar(a)justkernel.com
From: Pavel A. on 3 May 2010 17:49 Don, but this is exactly what I've complained about: after so many years of Windows on the market, how come that they still does not feel confident to make a commitment? And no matter how they explain the lack of commitment, they are going to be blamed. Besides of this, commercial USB over LAN products already exist, so the OP knows for sure this is possible. He would be a bit late on the market, though, but I really like his attitude -- MS has their own plans, we have ours, and we'll succeed, with them or without. Regards, -- pa "Don Burn" <burn(a)stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote in message news:E5AB73A81D714D4B82E9CF70757C38C9(a)Destiny... > If Microsoft say YES to giving you the documentation they face the > situation of locking down an interface. This is a challenge that most > OS vendors of the last 50 years or so have faced. Microsoft may feel > they do not have a stable interface for stack, remember right now this > is a contract between Microsoft drivers only. > > Yes you can reverse engineer it, but do not blame Microsoft for the > problems of your trying to reproduce an undocumented interface that can > change out from under you at any bug fix or update. THE DECISION TO > MAKE A DRIVER THAT IS UNLIKELY TO EVER BE STABLE IS YOURS, AND A > PROFESSIONAL RECOGNIZES THEIR RESPONSIBILITES. So if you persist in > trying to blame Microsoft, I can only assume that you are someone whose > firm should be avoided at all costs. > > > Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD) > Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting > Website: http://www.windrvr.com > Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: anshul makkar [mailto:anshul.makkar.maillist(a)gmail.com] >> >> Don, If Microsoft says NO, that can't stop someone to do what one > wants to do. >> >> What will be the end result , MS will again suffer when substandard > drivers >> (built due to lack of support) will be running along with Windows > which may >> lead to problems/crashes in OS. >> >> Thanks >> Anshul Makkar >> www.justkernel.com >> anshul_makkar(a)justkernel.com >> > >
From: Don Burn on 3 May 2010 18:12 Pavel, The problem is that there are a heck of a lot of things Microsoft could be doing, what their priority is we don't know. I worked for hardware firms and compiler firms and heard complaints about "This is an obvious thing you should have done a long time ago", of course if it was even on our list it was far from the top ten! As far as the OP is concerned, he has a blog where he blasted Microsoft for telling him they would not help him. I would be amazed if he ever contacted Microsoft corporate since he wrote the blog within 72 hours of his first post asking for help. I've dealt with Redmond, and they never get back this fast. Whether they would come back with anything helpful is hard to say, but from what I can tell he never tried to have a private contact with Microsoft. They aren't going to discuss futures on a public forum, so claiming Microsoft will not help is total bullshit. Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD) Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting Website: http://www.windrvr.com Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr > -----Original Message----- > From: Pavel A. [mailto:pavel_a(a)12fastmail34.fm] > Posted At: Monday, May 03, 2010 5:50 PM > Posted To: microsoft.public.development.device.drivers > Conversation: USB Over IP Documentation > Subject: Re: USB Over IP Documentation > > Don, > but this is exactly what I've complained about: after so many years of Windows > on the market, how come that they still does not feel confident to make a > commitment? And no matter how they explain the lack of commitment, they are > going to be blamed. > > Besides of this, commercial USB over LAN products already exist, so the OP > knows for sure this is possible. He would be a bit late on the market, though, > but I really like his attitude -- MS has their own plans, we have ours, and > we'll succeed, with them or without. > > Regards, > -- pa > > "Don Burn" <burn(a)stopspam.windrvr.com> wrote in message > news:E5AB73A81D714D4B82E9CF70757C38C9(a)Destiny... > > If Microsoft say YES to giving you the documentation they face the > > situation of locking down an interface. This is a challenge that most > > OS vendors of the last 50 years or so have faced. Microsoft may feel > > they do not have a stable interface for stack, remember right now this > > is a contract between Microsoft drivers only. > > > > Yes you can reverse engineer it, but do not blame Microsoft for the > > problems of your trying to reproduce an undocumented interface that > > can change out from under you at any bug fix or update. THE DECISION > > TO MAKE A DRIVER THAT IS UNLIKELY TO EVER BE STABLE IS YOURS, AND A > > PROFESSIONAL RECOGNIZES THEIR RESPONSIBILITES. So if you persist in > > trying to blame Microsoft, I can only assume that you are someone > > whose firm should be avoided at all costs. > > > > > > Don Burn (MVP, Windows DKD) > > Windows Filesystem and Driver Consulting > > Website: http://www.windrvr.com > > Blog: http://msmvps.com/blogs/WinDrvr > > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: anshul makkar [mailto:anshul.makkar.maillist(a)gmail.com] > >> > >> Don, If Microsoft says NO, that can't stop someone to do what one > > wants to do. > >> > >> What will be the end result , MS will again suffer when substandard > > drivers > >> (built due to lack of support) will be running along with Windows > > which may > >> lead to problems/crashes in OS. > >> > >> Thanks > >> Anshul Makkar > >> www.justkernel.com > >> anshul_makkar(a)justkernel.com > >> > > > > > > > __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature > database 5083 (20100503) __________ > > The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. > > http://www.eset.com >
First
|
Prev
|
Next
|
Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Prev: Thomas F. Divine Next: WinDDK is not building samples |