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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
