[coreboot] [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB

[Fridel Fainshtein]

Observing the UHCI code I can see the following issue (see usb.c and uhci.c):

1) uhc_init(dev);
...
2) uhci_init();

The first function uses " frame_list[num_controllers] ".
The second function initializes the frame_list by init_framelist(i);

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.

On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 7:56 PM,  <joe at smittys.pointclark.net> wrote:
> > Fridel's code, in patch form and with the non-USB bits removed.
>
>  Well,
>  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 it
>  > 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
>