the following patch was just integrated into master: commit 1c6d919eb051dd8a42ee7d1758a348984ff08563 Author: Julius Werner jwerner@chromium.org Date: Wed Apr 2 17:28:46 2014 -0700
libpayload: usb: ehci: Honor 10ms reset recovery period
This patch adds the 10ms TRSTRCY delay between a reset and the following Set Address command that is required by the USB 2.0 specification to the EHCI root hub driver. The generic_hub driver that's used for XHCI and external hubs already included this delay. This is such a glaring violation of the spec that I'm really amazed how many USB 2.0 devices we tested before seemed perfectly fine with responding to a Set Address within 2 microframes of the reset...
It also increases the port reset hold delay by one millisecond to avoid an ugly race condition on Tegra SoCs: they decided to time the 50ms themselves instead of relying on the CPU to do it (fair enough), and to automatically transition Port Reset to 0 and Port Enable to 1 after that (bad idea). If the CPU's read-modify-write to clear Port Reset races exactly with the host controller setting Port Enable, we may end up clearing the bit again and going into the companion controller handoff path later on. The added millisecond shouldn't cause any problems for other host controllers and is not a big deal compared to other delays in this code path.
BUG=chrome-os-partner:26749 TEST=Run several dozen reboot loops with The USB Stick of Death (TM) (a blue Patriot XT 13fe:5200 with bcdDevice = 1.00), make sure it always gets detected correctly.
Original-Change-Id: Idd3329ae6d7e5e1c07a84a5475549b3459836b31 Original-Signed-off-by: Julius Werner jwerner@chromium.org Original-Reviewed-on: https://chromium-review.googlesource.com/189872 Original-Reviewed-by: Gabe Black gabeblack@chromium.org Original-Reviewed-by: Jim Lin jilin@nvidia.com Original-Reviewed-by: Hung-Te Lin hungte@chromium.org (cherry picked from commit 4deca38e9d79f6373f4418fcaf51a6945232c8b8) Signed-off-by: Marc Jones marc.jones@se-eng.com
Change-Id: I68a29bfd2e0f30409fbfc330b2575f0f9f61a79d Reviewed-on: http://review.coreboot.org/7221 Tested-by: build bot (Jenkins) Reviewed-by: Patrick Georgi pgeorgi@google.com
See http://review.coreboot.org/7221 for details.
-gerrit