Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

> I had to look at usb-uhci and locking in it once again; > this time I know what is wrong with David-B's "fix" > Hey, all I claimed to do was fix an oops I'd been hitting. Are you claiming I was imagining the oops, and then i

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Linux 2.4.4 + USB + CPiA Driver

OK. It works with Linux 2.4.3. So the changes in 2.4.4 must caused this problem ! > > Tested with Linux 2.4.5. > > Problem is still there :(. > > I am no kernel hacker, but i can help ya to solve the problem ... if > logs or something else are wanted. > __

Re: [linux-usb-devel] *BAD* impact of usb on PCI performance

On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:54:21PM +0200, johan verrept wrote: > How and when is this choice made? > What is the impact of let's say a common low speeddevice like a mouse of keyboard? > If this slows down the system in such a way, they could be considered unusable... No, only bulk transfers are

[linux-usb-devel] ioctl read on a HID device

Hi, Only recently I've bought a USB tablet, and I want to create an Xinput driver for it. I've been messing with it, and I can get a proper report out of it, and I can decode that report. I get the report with a GET_DESCRIPTOR call, with wValue set to (USB_DT_REPORT<<8). According to the HID sp

[linux-usb-devel] Troublesome device.

I'm stuck on this one, I'm not sure if what I'm doing is a problem with the device, a problem with the doccumentation, or a problem with my software. Is there any way of turning up the level of Debug I get from the USB Subsystem. So I can view the data taht comes across the USB? Similarly if UHC

Re: [linux-usb-devel] *BAD* impact of usb on PCI performance

So perhaps the answer is then that this flag should be set for any driver (say, most usb network drivers including "usbnet") which post bulk reads for data that might not arrive for some long time? That flag isn't well documented ... no mention in linux/Documentation/usb/* of any kind. And there

[linux-usb-devel] hotplug remover support

Is there any objection to the remover patch I submitted a while ago to the hotplug and usb-devel lists? It seems to help my design of applications that use USB devices, so I would like to get it integrated into the main hotplug repository. If there are specific objections, I can address them. If

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Troublesome device.

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 03:18:30PM +0100, Jerram, Simon wrote: > I'm stuck on this one, I'm not sure if what I'm doing is a problem with the > device, a problem with the doccumentation, or a problem with my software. > > Is there any way of turning up the level of Debug I get from the USB > Subsy

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

On Sun, Jun 03, 2001, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I suggest we get rid of any instances of urb->lock in usb-uhci. > > It does not serve any useful purpose, and is a terrible bug > > generator. > > The "hcd" layer (used right now only for EHCI) uses that > lock when it's switchin

Re: [linux-usb-devel] *BAD* impact of usb on PCI performance

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 07:51:22AM -0700, David Brownell wrote: > So perhaps the answer is then that this flag should > be set for any driver (say, most usb network drivers > including "usbnet") which post bulk reads for data that > might not arrive for some long time? But when they arrive, you n

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

> From: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Sun, 03 Jun 2001 23:32:47 -0700 > > I had to look at usb-uhci and locking in it once again; > > this time I know what is wrong with David-B's "fix" > >

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

On Sun, Jun 03, 2001 at 10:01:00PM -0400, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > If problems crop up so thick, surely something is very wrong, > so I started to make lists and charts, and found something curious. > > It seems to me that all places where urb is locked by itself are > under the list lock too. The

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

> > So I'm not quite sure that urb->lock can really disappear. > > Though I'd agree that it's one of several chunks of urb data > > that aren't clearly enough specified. > > He specifically said usb-uhci and nothing about hcd or any other > drivers. OK, but I'll explicitly say that many of the U

[linux-usb-devel] ohci driver for SA1111

Hi All, I tried adding the ohci host controller driver into the 2.4.4-rmk3-np1 kernel (on a StrongARM 1100/SA based system) but received the following error during compile time: "usb-ohci currently requires PCI-based controllers". Has anyone developed ohci drivers for the SA? Or can any

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

> From: Georg Acher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks > Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Date: Mon, 4 Jun 2001 22:33:18 +0200 > > If problems crop up so thick, surely something is very wrong, > > so I started to make list

Re: [linux-usb-devel] *BAD* impact of usb [uhci] on PCI performance

> > And there I was thinking "bandwidth reclamation" was > > for optimizing bandwidth usage, not pessimizing it! :) > > USB bandwidth, other busses don't matter... I think Pavel was suggesting that's not correct, and PCI bandwidth utilization is actually a significant issue. > But seriously,

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So I'm not quite sure that urb->lock can really disappear. > > > Though I'd agree that it's one of several chunks of urb data > > > that aren't clearly enough specified. > > > > He specifically said usb-uhci and nothing about h

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

> > > I had to look at usb-uhci and locking in it once again; > > > this time I know what is wrong with David-B's "fix" > ... > > Your fix blows up on ia64 and we are going to ship something > like this for the RH 7.1/ia64: Strange -- what does IA64 do differently? What does the explosion look

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

> The best way, IMHO, would be to prohibit it altogether. > E.g. if URB is submitted (returned from usb_submit_urb > successfuly), then it cannot be unlinked until completition > is called [see note about cancel below]. Pete, if that's effectively suggesting that usb_unlink_urb() be removed from

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Linux 2.4.4 + USB + CPiA Driver

Since folk have been reporting issues with iso in current OHCI code, I've spent a bit of time looking at it: - I've got "camstream" working fine right now with a CPIA camera and OHCI on a slowish (P1/300) laptop ... works fine, no messages. - Same with the single report I've seen that audio is

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

On Mon, Jun 04, 2001, David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I had to look at usb-uhci and locking in it once again; > > > > this time I know what is wrong with David-B's "fix" > > ... > > > > Your fix blows up on ia64 and we are going to ship something > > like this for the RH 7.1/ia6

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

> From: David Brownell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001 19:22:47 -0700 > > The best way, IMHO, would be to prohibit it altogether. > > E.g. if URB is submitted (returned from usb_submit_urb > > successfuly), then it cannot be unlinked until completition > > is called [see note about c

[linux-usb-devel] Query on IRPs

I have a query on IRPs :- I want to know what exactly is an IRP from the programmers point of view and how the USB client s/w determines the type of transfer for the IRP and the transactions required for the IRP. Which part of the USB s/w exactly carries out the transfer of data if a data trans

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Once again about usb-uhci and locks

> > > Based on the above, I think that unlinking and completition > > > cannot work together as long as they abuse urb->status to signal > > > if the urb is referenced. > > > > If access or modification of urb->status were consistently > > protected by grabbing urb->lock, I'd think that suffices

Re: [linux-usb-devel] Linux 2.4.4 + USB + CPiA Driver

David Brownell wrote: > > Since folk have been reporting issues with iso in current OHCI code, > I've spent a bit of time looking at it: > > - I've got "camstream" working fine right now with a CPIA camera > and OHCI on a slowish (P1/300) laptop ... works fine, no messages. > > - Same with th

[linux-usb-devel] Re: [Linux-usb-users] Re: usb-ohci freeze at line 2027

This might be more interesting to read if you did it as a diff -u -C 5 so we could see what devices got changed, along with the changes. Matt On Mon, Jun 04, 2001 at 10:56:34PM +, François Boisson wrote: > > .Is there a Cmos on this > > card, a Windows detector that unlock the card,