On Monday 13 August 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > With the VIA controller I have,
Which kind is that? The VT6202 is buggy as all get-out, and they sold a *LOT* of those discrete chips for use in add-on PCI cards. We generally warn people away from those. A more current version is the VT6212, which was much more usable. (If it says EHCI 0.95, it's a VT6202... their EHCI 1.0 chips were much better.) > after I set the "inactivate" bit, I > eventually see the controller set bit 1 in the overlay token > (SplitXstate), indicating that it's running the transaction, and, a > couple microframes later, it clears that bit again. The transaction is > not inactivated. > ... > Perhaps for now the best thing would just be to bypass the EHCI CPU > frequency notifier code (i.e., my patch) for VIA EHCI controllers, since > they are broken. Would a hard-coded blacklist (just an "if > (manufacturer==VIA)..." type thing) be OK? Yes ... although if you don't need to blacklist their EHCI 1.0 chips don't do it. (Any VIA EHCI integrated into a southbridge is going to follow spec rev 1.0 pretty well, modulo idiosyncratic timings.) > I've also acquired a card with an NEC EHCI controller on it, which I'm > going to look at while I'm into it... Another case where there are a lot of add-on "EHCI 0.95" cards; but in this case the quirks were less significant. - Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
