[usbproxy] Re: noob

  • From: Dominic Spill <dominicgs@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: usbproxy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 26 Jul 2015 17:23:53 +0100

On 24 July 2015 at 11:12, Kang, Myung <the.mkang@xxxxxx> wrote:

Good morning, all!

I agree. I had the most luck with the BBB OS image.
I received the message when I didn't have the connection between BBB and host
(miniUSB) correctly.

Yes, good point. Make sure both connections are connected correctly.

I am surprised that they're thinking of removing. Why?

I think I was wrong when I said they were removing it, but it was
recently broken and the maintainers of the linux gadgets seemed to
encourage moving to gadget functions and configfs. The problem is
that neither of these seem to allow completely arbitrary devices in
the way that gadgetfs does.


-----Original Message-----
From: usbproxy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:usbproxy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Dominic Spill
Sent: Friday, July 24, 2015 2:29 AM
To: usbproxy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [usbproxy] Re: noob

On 24 July 2015 at 01:51, Mike Mannion <mannion@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hello I'm new to USBProxy and I'm trying to get it up and running on my BBB.
I've followed all of the steps I've been able to find across the web
but I still seem to me missing something.

My most recent process is
- install OS image from
- flash to device
- apt-get upgrade, update, install (libusb, cmake etc.)

apt-get update and upgrade is a good thing to do, but unfortunately
installing libusb from the repositories is the cause of your problem.

We use a specific version of libusb to work around devices that automatically
get attached to a kernel driver. This means that you need to use the version
that was installed on the BBB OS image that was published.

At both failures I get the error message "Error sending control
"Unable to connect to device proxy."

This sounds like you don't have a USB device connected to the BBB.

On a somewhat related note, do you know of any good gadgetfs reference

There really isn't any documentation other than this:

I get the impression that the kernel developers would like to see gadgetfs
removed, but we can't work as easily with the replacement methods.

Other related posts: