Re: Is UPS_PORT_POWER wrong?
Hi HPS,
Do you have better idea?
From: Kohji Okuno okuno.ko...@jp.panasonic.com
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 09:53:29 +0900 (JST)
Hi HPS,
On Monday 23 January 2012 09:12:46 Kohji Okuno wrote:
Hi HPS,
I think that UPS_PORT_POWER and UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE overlap.
And, in xhci.c you set UPS_PORT_POWER as folows.
When UPS_PORT_POWER is set, UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_GET() macro will
return incorrect value.
if (v XHCI_PS_PP) {
/*
* The USB 3.0 RH is using the
* USB 2.0's power bit
*/
i |= UPS_PORT_POWER;
}
Hi,
The USB 3.0 root HUB is special because it defines FULL/HIGH and LOW speed,
so
I had to merge that into the port status register of the XHCI root HUB like
this:
0: CONNECT_STATUS
1: PORT_ENABLED
2: SUSPEND
3: OVERCURRENT_INDICATOR
4: LINK STATE (USB 3.0)
5: -
6: -
7: -
8: PORT_POWER (USB 2.0)
# Bit 9+10 have 4 combinations which are defined: FS, LW, HS, SS
9: LOW_SPEED (USB 2.0)
10: HIGH_SPEED (USB 2.0)
11: not implemented
12: PORT_INDICATOR
13:
14:
15: MODE_DEVICE (FreeBSD specific)
If you have a better idea, it is possible to change this.
I have a idea.
-#define UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_GET(x) (((x) 5) 0xF)
-#define UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_SET(x) (((x) 0xF) 5)
+#define UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_GET(x) x) 5) 0x7)|(((x) 11)
0x8))
+#define UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_SET(x) x) 0x7) 5)|(((x) 0x8)
11))
+#define UPS_PORT_LS_SS 0x4000 /* currently FreeBSD
specific */
But, this is not cool.
Regards,
Kohji Okuno
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is UPS_PORT_POWER wrong?
On Saturday 28 January 2012 12:53:39 Kohji Okuno wrote: Hi HPS, Do you have better idea? It might be we should implement a separate control request to get the information we need? Though that needs to be standardized. What do you think about that? --HPS ___ freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is UPS_PORT_POWER wrong?
On Monday 23 January 2012 09:12:46 Kohji Okuno wrote:
Hi HPS,
I think that UPS_PORT_POWER and UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE overlap.
And, in xhci.c you set UPS_PORT_POWER as folows.
When UPS_PORT_POWER is set, UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_GET() macro will
return incorrect value.
if (v XHCI_PS_PP) {
/*
* The USB 3.0 RH is using the
* USB 2.0's power bit
*/
i |= UPS_PORT_POWER;
}
Hi,
The USB 3.0 root HUB is special because it defines FULL/HIGH and LOW speed, so
I had to merge that into the port status register of the XHCI root HUB like
this:
0: CONNECT_STATUS
1: PORT_ENABLED
2: SUSPEND
3: OVERCURRENT_INDICATOR
4: LINK STATE (USB 3.0)
5: -
6: -
7: -
8: PORT_POWER (USB 2.0)
# Bit 9+10 have 4 combinations which are defined: FS, LW, HS, SS
9: LOW_SPEED (USB 2.0)
10: HIGH_SPEED (USB 2.0)
11: not implemented
12: PORT_INDICATOR
13:
14:
15: MODE_DEVICE (FreeBSD specific)
If you have a better idea, it is possible to change this.
--HPS
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
Re: Is UPS_PORT_POWER wrong?
Hi HPS,
On Monday 23 January 2012 09:12:46 Kohji Okuno wrote:
Hi HPS,
I think that UPS_PORT_POWER and UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE overlap.
And, in xhci.c you set UPS_PORT_POWER as folows.
When UPS_PORT_POWER is set, UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_GET() macro will
return incorrect value.
if (v XHCI_PS_PP) {
/*
* The USB 3.0 RH is using the
* USB 2.0's power bit
*/
i |= UPS_PORT_POWER;
}
Hi,
The USB 3.0 root HUB is special because it defines FULL/HIGH and LOW speed,
so
I had to merge that into the port status register of the XHCI root HUB like
this:
0: CONNECT_STATUS
1: PORT_ENABLED
2: SUSPEND
3: OVERCURRENT_INDICATOR
4: LINK STATE (USB 3.0)
5: -
6: -
7: -
8: PORT_POWER (USB 2.0)
# Bit 9+10 have 4 combinations which are defined: FS, LW, HS, SS
9: LOW_SPEED (USB 2.0)
10: HIGH_SPEED (USB 2.0)
11: not implemented
12: PORT_INDICATOR
13:
14:
15: MODE_DEVICE (FreeBSD specific)
If you have a better idea, it is possible to change this.
I have a idea.
-#define UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_GET(x) (((x) 5) 0xF)
-#define UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_SET(x) (((x) 0xF) 5)
+#define UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_GET(x) x) 5) 0x7)|(((x) 11)
0x8))
+#define UPS_PORT_LINK_STATE_SET(x) x) 0x7) 5)|(((x) 0x8)
11))
+#define UPS_PORT_LS_SS 0x4000 /* currently FreeBSD specific
*/
But, this is not cool.
Regards,
Kohji Okuno
___
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org
