Anyway, working output is as in the attached file. I use Kingston
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:24 AM, <joe(a)smittys.pointclark.net> wrote:
Quoting Fridel Fainshtein <fainshf(a)gmail.com>:
Observing the UHCI code I can see the following
issue (see usb.c and uhci.c):
The first function uses " frame_list[num_controllers] ".
The second function initializes the frame_list by init_framelist(i);
Depend on the value of (i), correct?
May be if the order will be different it will works. I am not sure,
though. It is 3 o'clock, may be I just dreaming.
Thanks for the insite Fridel, I will look into this deeper.
> > Fridel's code, in patch form and with the non-USB bits removed.
> I tested this patch and it does nothing for UHCI :-( It might work
> great for OHCI but someone else will need to test it.
> > It should fall back, but not everything does that properly. Just for
> > checking the basic functioning, any old USB 1.1 device (keyboard, mouse,
> > hub) will do to at least see that it was recognized and configured.
> > IIRC, the sequence is:
> > 1. detect that a device is connected to the port
> > 2. enable the port
> > 3. Assign a USB ID with a setup packet
> > 4. query for device type and strings
> > 5. If a suitable block device, load the payload.
> > 5 used to be a stream object (like in the old LinuxBIOS code) handed to
> > a copy of the the ELF loader. the read method set up the request and
> > called into the USB polling loop. I'm guessing that's
> > One potential issue there is that control of the physical port between
> > UHCI or OHCI (for 1.1) and EHCI (for 2.0) is determined by a bit in a
> > register. I'm not sure what happens if it's set wrong, but I suspect
> > could look like your debug output.
> > was this exact setup working before r54? One possability is that the USB
> > code always had a bug that wasn't visible when allocations were quietly
> > double the requested size.
> So I tried a low speed device (old usb mouse) and it did something
> different, it still errored out of course (because it is not a drive)
> but I think it was working the way it is supposed to??? Anyways I also
> tried a USB 2.0 flash drive with no success. I think what is happening
> here is, it is not falling back to low speed UHCI......see
> attachment....I don't know where to go from here....
Thanks - Joe