Adding additional case statements for SET_FEATURE and CLEAR_FEATURE
- Ignoring (which is done by default) - Device, Interface and Endpoint variants
This commit is contained in:
parent
b2dfd63d4b
commit
55346314b8
@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ static void usb_setup()
|
||||
data = reply_buffer;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case 0x0082: // GET_STATUS (endpoint)
|
||||
if (setup.wIndex > NUM_ENDPOINTS)
|
||||
if ( setup.wIndex > NUM_ENDPOINTS )
|
||||
{
|
||||
// TODO: do we need to handle IN vs OUT here?
|
||||
endpoint0_stall();
|
||||
@ -313,7 +313,12 @@ static void usb_setup()
|
||||
data = reply_buffer;
|
||||
datalen = 2;
|
||||
break;
|
||||
case 0x0102: // CLEAR_FEATURE (endpoint)
|
||||
case 0x0100: // CLEAR_FEATURE (device)
|
||||
case 0x0101: // CLEAR_FEATURE (interface)
|
||||
// TODO: Currently ignoring, perhaps useful? -HaaTa
|
||||
endpoint0_stall();
|
||||
return;
|
||||
case 0x0102: // CLEAR_FEATURE (interface)
|
||||
i = setup.wIndex & 0x7F;
|
||||
if ( i > NUM_ENDPOINTS || setup.wValue != 0 )
|
||||
{
|
||||
@ -328,6 +333,11 @@ static void usb_setup()
|
||||
// XXX: Ignoring seems to work, though this may not be the ideal behaviour -HaaTa
|
||||
endpoint0_stall();
|
||||
return;
|
||||
case 0x0300: // SET_FEATURE (device)
|
||||
case 0x0301: // SET_FEATURE (interface)
|
||||
// TODO: Currently ignoring, perhaps useful? -HaaTa
|
||||
endpoint0_stall();
|
||||
return;
|
||||
case 0x0302: // SET_FEATURE (endpoint)
|
||||
i = setup.wIndex & 0x7F;
|
||||
if ( i > NUM_ENDPOINTS || setup.wValue != 0 )
|
||||
|
Reference in New Issue
Block a user