On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 14:12, Julian Elischer wrote: > Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > >On Friday, 29. October 2004 20:29, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > > >>I think EHCI would only make it worse. > > > >Yes. > > > >>The same 1.1 bugs would be there > >>that you mention, and then the ones added by EHCI. i.e. it doesnt take any > >>1.1 bugs away, just adds more. > >> > > > >Exactly. And I still say it should go in. And you should file a PR about your > >ehci issues (oh, yeah, and we need USB maintainers to take them, too :(). > > I have been taking a sebatical from freeBSD after puting my marriage a > bit too close to the > line than I like.. :-) > but one of my next things to look at is teh USB code.. > I've already been in there a bit and will be getting in again with a few > others who have shown > interest as soon as: > > 1/ I've spent enough time at home with the kids/wife to keep that side > balanced.. > 2/ work settles down > 3/ the 5.3 push is over. > > We have about 6 people who have shown interest in USB and we should be > starting up a mailing > list soon (who's doing that?) which should help. > In addition we need expertise in newbus, CAM/SIM to help us get those > sides of things in order. > > It needs more than a small touchup.. What I am wondering about is why I get ehci in my kernel when I do not ask for it: server# grep ehci LINT LINT:device ehci So there is a config directive available... server# grep hci AMD64 AMD64:device uhci # UHCI PCI->USB interface AMD64:device ohci # OHCI PCI->USB interface So I have not specified it... server# kldstat -v | grep ehci 135 ehci/usb Yet it is in my kernel? Cheers, Sean
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:20 UTC