> From: Rudolf Leitgeb <rudolf.leit...@gmx.at> > Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2019 17:27:20 +0200 > > > Someone who doesn't develop in the kernel makes proposal for > > a platform they deride as sucking, so why not just do the worst > > possible job because who cares > > That platform is perfect for what I need, that's why I installed > OpenBSD on it and started configuring it for the task in question. > We are soooo long past the "faster CPU = better" era, that your > connection "hideously slow == sucking" just makes no sense. > > Let's face it: octeon is not a high powered platform, it is > unsuitable for running a large data center server, it's also > unsuitable for high performance NAS. It's a small router CPU > in which it does an incredible job and consumes little power. > > As set up in the EdgeRouter 4 it is unable to handle the data > sent through USB3, both by volume and by data rate. It is therefore > a very reasonable suggestion to downrate it to USB2 if this > solves an immediate problem. Getting stuff done and the like ...
Octeon has an XHCI USB controller that does both USB2 and USB3; there is no USB2 companion controller like on older Intel systems. Hence the suggestion to try with a USB2 hub. > If one of your vast pool of experienced kernel developers > accepts my offer for help, and if this effort benefits platforms > that have the actual hmpft to handle USB3 data loads, then my > offer for help still stands. We don't acept offers to help. We accept patches. Just get on with it and if you figure something out, send us a diff. If you need some hints: The Octeon XHCI controller is actually a Synopsys Designware controller. Thos controllers have many quirks and chicken bits to address those quirks. Maybe we don't set the right bits. Sometimes the device tree tells us which chicken bits to set. But we don't implement them all yet.
