[PATCH/RFC 2/2] usb: host: ehci-platform: fix usb 1.1 device is not connected in system resume

This patch fixes an issue that a usb 1.1 device is not connected in system resume and then the following message appeared if debug messages are enabled: usb 2-1: Waited 2000ms for CONNECT To resolve this issue, the EHCI controller must be resumed after its companion controllers. So, this

[PATCH/RFC 0/2] usb: host: ehci-platform: fix usb 1.1 device is not connected in system resume

This patch set is based on Greg's usb.git / usb-next branch (the commit id = 0df8a3dbacb585bb9c8b2e55de43c6aac9d86488). This patch set is related to the following email threads: http://marc.info/?t=14865351421=1=2 http://marc.info/?t=14871253435=1=2 Since I'm not sure the helper

[PATCH/RFC 1/2] usb: of: add functions to bind a companion controller

EHCI controllers will have a companion controller. However, on platform bus, there was difficult to bind them in previous code. So, this patch adds helper functions to bind them using a "companion" property. Signed-off-by: Yoshihiro Shimoda ---

RE: [PATCH] usb: ohci-at91: revert patch 2e2aa1bc7eff90ec on cpu without SFR register

> -Original Message- > From: Jelle Martijn Kok [mailto:jm...@youcom.nl] > Sent: 2017年2月16日 23:20 > To: linux-usb@vger.kernel.org > Cc: Wenyou Yang - A41535 ; Alan Stern > > Subject: [PATCH] usb: ohci-at91: revert patch

Re: [PATCH RESEND v7 1/1] usb: xhci: plat: Enable async suspend/resume

On 10 February 2017 at 22:56, Robert Foss wrote: > From: Andrew Bresticker > > USB host controllers can take a significant amount of time to suspend > and resume, adding several hundred miliseconds to the kernel resume > time. Since the XHCI

Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] usb: host: plat: Enable xhci plat runtime PM

Hi Mathias, On 6 February 2017 at 13:26, Baolin Wang wrote: > Hi Mathias, > > On 31 January 2017 at 21:14, Mathias Nyman > wrote: >> On 16.01.2017 12:56, Baolin Wang wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mathias, >> >> >> Hi >> >> Sorry about the long review

Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: ep0: Fix the possible missed request for handling delay STATUS phase

On 17 February 2017 at 16:04, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > Baolin Wang writes: (One possible approach would be to have the setup routine return different values for explicit and implicit status stages -- for example, return 1 if it