Paul Brook wrote:
On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Dor Laor wrote:
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 01:30 +, Paul Brook wrote:
-The host kernel was configured with dynamic tick & hi-res timers, to
allow the desired timer resolution. USB 2.0 microframe is 125usec.
It still works even witho
On Tuesday 08 January 2008, Dor Laor wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 01:30 +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > -The host kernel was configured with dynamic tick & hi-res timers, to
> > > allow the desired timer resolution. USB 2.0 microframe is 125usec.
>
> It still works even without accurate timing dem
On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 01:30 +, Paul Brook wrote:
> > -The host kernel was configured with dynamic tick & hi-res timers, to
> > allow the desired timer resolution. USB 2.0 microframe is 125usec.
>
It still works even without accurate timing demands.
Only isochronous mode will have problems an
?
Arnon
-Original Message-
From: Paul Brook [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 3:30 AM
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Arnon Gilboa; KVM; Roni Luxenberg
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] USB 2.0 EHCI emulation
> -The host kernel was configured with dynamic tick &
> -The host kernel was configured with dynamic tick & hi-res timers, to
> allow the desired timer resolution. USB 2.0 microframe is 125usec.
Requiring a 8kHz timer is a non-starter.
The 100kHz "retry" timer is even more bogus.
Qemu isn't capable of this kind of realtime response. You need to fi
