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 thum
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 Frys
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 migh
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 pr
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 w
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 embedde
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.
> > > > th
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 r
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 an
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 sys
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 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 an
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 hos
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 an
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
20 matches
Mail list logo
