Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> Oops? I thought the paired controller there is for OSes not being able
> to handle EHCI yet? So that USB works even for those ... I think EHCI
> should handle even 1.x devices ... I may be wrong, though.
Check the Intel EHCI spec. Esp. the chapter about port handover...
On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 01:37:23PM +0100, Thomas Sailer wrote:
> > I hope EHCI makes it all moot. Some way or another.
>
> Only for USB2 devices. EHCI is supposed to be paired with an existing
> UHCI or OHCI controller core that is supposed to take over the USB connector
> if an USB 1.x hub or d
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I'd disagree. UHCI has tons of advantages, not the least of which is
> [Cthat it was there first and is widely available. If OHCI hadn't been
> done we'd have _one_ nice good USB controller implementation instead of
UHCI has a couple of disadvantages, though (and some o
Hi!
> >One note for the archives, if you are presented a choice between a OHCI
> >or a UHCI controller, go for the OHCI. It has a "cleaner" interface,
> >handles more of the logic in the silicon, and due to this provides
> >faster transfers.
>
> I'd disagree. UHCI has tons of advantages, not t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 11:25:50PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
>> Here is lspci output from the laptop in question. Is this not UHCI?
>
>Yes it is. Just a bit funny if you think about it, but with Intel and
>Via putting the UHCI cor
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 11:25:50PM -0800, Ben Ford wrote:
> Here is lspci output from the laptop in question. Is this not UHCI?
Yes it is. Just a bit funny if you think about it, but with Intel and
Via putting the UHCI core into their chipsets I guess it makes sense.
One note for the archives,
Here is lspci output from the laptop in question. Is this not UHCI?
[ben@Juanita ben]$ /sbin/lspci
00:00.0 Host bridge: Intel Corporation 440BX/ZX - 82443BX/ZX Host bridge (rev 03)
00:01.0 PCI bridge: Intel Corporation 440BX/ZX - 82443BX/ZX AGP bridge (rev 03)
00:07.0 ISA bridge: Intel Corporati
Greg KH wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 09:27:19PM -0800, David Ford wrote:
> >
> > The second issue is usb. I now have two machines that lockup on boot in USB.
> > One is the above workstation, the second is a Compaq laptop. Unfortunately
> > I have no way of unplugging the USB hardware ins
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 09:27:19PM -0800, David Ford wrote:
>
> The second issue is usb. I now have two machines that lockup on boot in USB.
> One is the above workstation, the second is a Compaq laptop. Unfortunately
> I have no way of unplugging the USB hardware inside the laptop :P
Can't yo
> > The mysterious lockups in test11-pre5 continue in test11-pre6. It is very
> > difficult because the lockups appear to be kdb-specific (and kdb itself
[...]
> It could be that -test5 and -test6 break some assumption kdb makes.
> It has been eminently stable here.
Whether or not the assumptio
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:00:49 + (GMT),
Tigran Aivazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The mysterious lockups in test11-pre5 continue in test11-pre6. It is very
>difficult because the lockups appear to be kdb-specific (and kdb itself
>goes mad) but when there is no kdb there is very little useful
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000 20:00:49 + (GMT),
Tigran Aivazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The mysterious lockups in test11-pre5 continue in test11-pre6. It is very
>difficult because the lockups appear to be kdb-specific (and kdb itself
>goes mad) but when there is no kdb there is very little useful
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:Tigran Aivazian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Hi,
>
> The mysterious lockups in test11-pre5 continue in test11-pre6. It is very
> difficult because the lockups appear to be kdb-specific (and kdb itself
> goes mad) but when t
On Fri, 17 Nov 2000, Erik Andersen wrote:
>> > - Rik Faith: DRM update to make it easier to sync up 2.2.x
>> > - David Woodhouse: make old 16-bit pcmcia controllers work
>> > again (ie i82365 and TCIC)
>> Level I
>>
>> The list is getting shorter.
>
>WTF is "Level I" supposed to
Chris Wedgwood wrote:
> There are 'hotplug' additions -- these now mean the networking code
> won't build without "CONFIG_HOTPLUG=y".
>
> What is the correct fix here; fix the networking code or just take
> this option out and ensure hotplug functionality is no longer
> compile-time dependent (al
On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> The log-file says it all..
>
> Linus
No, I am sorry but it does not mention hotplug things in net/core/dev.c
and they are broken. The fix below.
Regards,
Tigran
diff -urN -X dontdiff linux/init/main.c work/init/main.c
--- linux/ini
Missing up_and_exit() which is required for killing kernel threads on
cleanup_module().
This patch also fixes JFFS and USB hub.c to use it.
Index: include/linux/kernel.h
===
RCS file: /inst/cvs/linux/include/linux/kernel.h,v
ret
On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 12:30:46AM -0700, Erik Andersen wrote:
> On Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:45:10PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > >
> > > - pre6:
> > > - Intel: start to add Pentium IV specific stuff (128-byte cacheline
> > > etc)
> > > - David Miller: search-and-destroy places t
Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: Jeff V. Merkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: Kernel Mailing List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: test11-pre6
>
> On Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:45:10PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > >
> > > - pre6:
> >
On Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:45:10PM -0700, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > - pre6:
> > - Intel: start to add Pentium IV specific stuff (128-byte cacheline
> > etc)
> > - David Miller: search-and-destroy places that forget to mark us
> > running after removing us from a wait-queue
From: "Ying Chen/Almaden/IBM" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:Thu, 16 Nov 2000 19:02:25 -0800
You forgot about wakeup_bdflush(1) stuff.
What are you talking about, did you even check the
patch?
Your changes are already in there.
Later,
David S. Miller
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscri
Linus,
You forgot about wakeup_bdflush(1) stuff.
Here is the patch again (against test10).
===
There are several places where schedule() is called after wakeup_bdflush(1)
is called. This is completely unnecessary, since wakeup_bdflush(
On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 06:33:11PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> The log-file says it all..
>
> Linus
>
> -
>
> - pre6:
> - Intel: start to add Pentium IV specific stuff (128-byte cacheline
> etc)
> - David Miller: search-and-destroy places that forget to ma
23 matches
Mail list logo
