On Thu 3 Jan 2008 12:04, Richard D pondered:
> Does all USB Host controller hardware have the ability to disable PING?
I think they do. (or at least should)...
http://www.intel.com/technology/usb/download/ehci-r10.pdf
==
4.11 Ping Control (page 88)
USB 2.0 defines an addition to
Does all USB Host controller hardware have the ability to disable PING?
> > > 2. Do you remember the PING issue I reported in OMAP list? How do
> you
> > > think of that?
> >
> > Yes, something needs to be done. EHCI might benefit from the same
> > kind of patch, to cope with ill-behaved usb
ernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] : Allow embedded developers USB
> options normally reserved for OTG
>
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike F
On Jan 3, 2008 3:36 PM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Bryan Wu wrote:
> > B.T.W, 2 questions about the MUSB driver:
> > 1. What's the plan for mainline merge of the whole MUSB driver? maybe
> > I can cleanup current Blackfin ports to you guys.
>
> It
On Jan 3, 2008 3:36 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Bryan Wu wrote:
B.T.W, 2 questions about the MUSB driver:
1. What's the plan for mainline merge of the whole MUSB driver? maybe
I can cleanup current Blackfin ports to you guys.
It might as well
Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] [PATCH] : Allow embedded developers USB
options normally reserved for OTG
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, David Brownell wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether
Does all USB Host controller hardware have the ability to disable PING?
2. Do you remember the PING issue I reported in OMAP list? How do
you
think of that?
Yes, something needs to be done. EHCI might benefit from the same
kind of patch, to cope with ill-behaved usb thumb drives.
On Thu 3 Jan 2008 12:04, Richard D pondered:
Does all USB Host controller hardware have the ability to disable PING?
I think they do. (or at least should)...
http://www.intel.com/technology/usb/download/ehci-r10.pdf
==
4.11 Ping Control (page 88)
USB 2.0 defines an addition to
On Wed 2 Jan 2008 22:43, David Brownell pondered:
> This patch might be improved slightly -- in ways that, as I
> understand things, could save some RAM on Blackfin! -- by
> having the BLACKLIST_HUB option get rid of the transaction
> translator support (changing C code not just Kconfig).
> It's
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Bryan Wu wrote:
> B.T.W, 2 questions about the MUSB driver:
> 1. What's the plan for mainline merge of the whole MUSB driver? maybe
> I can cleanup current Blackfin ports to you guys.
It might as well merge in 2.6.25-early. It'll be easier to integrate
patches that
On Jan 3, 2008 11:43 AM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> > On Wed 2 Jan 2008 13:47, David Brownell pondered:
> > > On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> > > > From: Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > >
> > > > Allow
On Jan 3, 2008 4:58 AM, Alan Stern <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, David Brownell wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >
> > > > perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether it really matters.
> > > >
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> On Wed 2 Jan 2008 13:47, David Brownell pondered:
> > On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> > > From: Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > >
> > > Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if
> > > they have a full
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
>
> > The transaction translators in external high speed hubs require
> > hosts to issue particular USB transactions. If the host controller
> > doesn't implement the that split transaction support, then it won't
> > be supporting external hubs.
>
On Jan 3, 2008 2:47 AM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> > From: Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they
> > have a
> > full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM
On Wed 2 Jan 2008 13:47, David Brownell pondered:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> > From: Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if
> > they have a full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash size).
>
>
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> >
> > > perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether it really matters.
> > > the reason we want it is that we have a USB host controller that will
> > >
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
>
> > perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether it really matters.
> > the reason we want it is that we have a USB host controller that will
> > not work with USB hubs, so we want to make sure the
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether it really matters.
> the reason we want it is that we have a USB host controller that will
> not work with USB hubs, so we want to make sure the system does not
> attempt such things. (yes, such a USB
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:47:15AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> > From: Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they
> > have a
> > full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > >
> > > Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they
> > > have a
> > > full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash size).
> >
> > ISTR that it won't save very much code though ... the Linux USB
> > stack
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Felipe Balbi wrote:
>The problem I see here is that my only
> "user" is musb driver, currently only available on linux-omap git tree.
>
> Maybe it's time to send it to mainline, what do you think Dave?
Probably time, yes. ISTR the main open issues are on
On Jan 2, 2008 1:47 PM, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> > From: Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they
> > have a
> > full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
> From: Robin Getz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they have
> a
> full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash size).
ISTR that it won't save very much code though ... the Linux
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
From: Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they have
a
full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash size).
ISTR that it won't save very much code though ... the Linux USB
On Jan 2, 2008 1:47 PM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
From: Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they
have a
full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash size).
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Felipe Balbi wrote:
The problem I see here is that my only
user is musb driver, currently only available on linux-omap git tree.
Maybe it's time to send it to mainline, what do you think Dave?
Probably time, yes. ISTR the main open issues are on host
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they
have a
full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash size).
ISTR that it won't save very much code though ... the Linux USB
stack structures all
On Wed, Jan 02, 2008 at 10:47:15AM -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
From: Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they
have a
full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether it really matters.
the reason we want it is that we have a USB host controller that will
not work with USB hubs, so we want to make sure the system does not
attempt such things. (yes, such a USB host
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether it really matters.
the reason we want it is that we have a USB host controller that will
not work with USB hubs, so we want to make sure the system
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, David Brownell wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether it really matters.
the reason we want it is that we have a USB host controller that will
not work with
On Wed 2 Jan 2008 13:47, David Brownell pondered:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
From: Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if
they have a full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash size).
ISTR that it
On Jan 3, 2008 2:47 AM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
From: Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if they
have a
full root hub. This saves the overhead (RAM and Flash size).
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
On Wed 2 Jan 2008 13:47, David Brownell pondered:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
From: Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow embedded developers to turn support for USB Hubs off even if
they have a full root hub. This
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
The transaction translators in external high speed hubs require
hosts to issue particular USB transactions. If the host controller
doesn't implement the that split transaction support, then it won't
be supporting external hubs.
So in
On Jan 3, 2008 4:58 AM, Alan Stern [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, David Brownell wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Mike Frysinger wrote:
perhaps the code size is arguable as to whether it really matters.
the reason we want it
On Jan 3, 2008 11:43 AM, David Brownell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
On Wed 2 Jan 2008 13:47, David Brownell pondered:
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Robin Getz wrote:
From: Robin Getz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Allow embedded developers to turn
On Wednesday 02 January 2008, Bryan Wu wrote:
B.T.W, 2 questions about the MUSB driver:
1. What's the plan for mainline merge of the whole MUSB driver? maybe
I can cleanup current Blackfin ports to you guys.
It might as well merge in 2.6.25-early. It'll be easier to integrate
patches that
On Wed 2 Jan 2008 22:43, David Brownell pondered:
This patch might be improved slightly -- in ways that, as I
understand things, could save some RAM on Blackfin! -- by
having the BLACKLIST_HUB option get rid of the transaction
translator support (changing C code not just Kconfig).
It's pretty
40 matches
Mail list logo
