Both are specifications for USB Host controllers. The difference between
them is internals of the chip and the interface exposed on the PCI bus.
In brief:
OHCI is made by M$ and emphasizes the fact that hardware should
be smart to facilitate the software's task.
UHCI is
Hi all,
I have a Toshiba 2100CDS laptop with an OHCI USB controller
that gives a kue0: failed to load code segment error message
Rather than clutter the list, the conf file and the dmesg boot
file is available at
ftp.eas.slu.edu:/pub/incoming/[usbdmesg, usbbootmsg, usbltaconf]
The usbbootmsg is
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Eric J. Haug
had to walk into mine and say:
Hi all,
I have a Toshiba 2100CDS laptop with an OHCI USB controller
that gives a kue0: failed to load code segment error message
Rather than clutter the list, the conf file and the dmesg
Subject: Re: USB D-Link DSB-650 kue0: failed to load code
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eric J. Haug)
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 15:48:42 -0500 (EST)
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG
I have a Toshiba 2100CDS laptop with an OHCI USB controller
that gives a kue0: failed to load code segment error
Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, Eric J. Haug
had to walk into mine and say:
- Find the kue_do_request() function.
- Change the timeout from 50 to 100, i.e. change this:
usbd_setup_default_xfer(xfer, dev, 0, 100, req,
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000, Bill Paul wrote:
I also noticed that performance with the OHCI controller is significantly
better than with the UHCI controller. Just my rotten luck I'm stuck
with a UHCI one in my laptop.
Ok, with all this flurry of USB development, I keep seeing UHCI and
OHCI. What's
