[coreboot] [LinuxBIOS] FILO with the USB
fainshf at gmail.com
Tue Apr 1 14:37:28 CEST 2008
Anyway, working output is as in the attached file. I use Kingston
On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 3:24 AM, <joe at smittys.pointclark.net> wrote:
> Quoting Fridel Fainshtein <fainshf at gmail.com>:
> > Observing the UHCI code I can see the following issue (see usb.c and uhci.c):
> > 1) uhc_init(dev);
> > ...
> > 2) uhci_init();
> > The first function uses " frame_list[num_controllers] ".
> > The second function initializes the frame_list by init_framelist(i);
> Depend on the value of (i), correct?
> > May be if the order will be different it will works. I am not sure,
> > though. It is 3 o'clock, may be I just dreaming.
> Thanks for the insite Fridel, I will look into this deeper.
> >> > Fridel's code, in patch form and with the non-USB bits removed.
> >> Well,
> >> I tested this patch and it does nothing for UHCI :-( It might work
> >> great for OHCI but someone else will need to test it.
> >> > It should fall back, but not everything does that properly. Just for
> >> > checking the basic functioning, any old USB 1.1 device (keyboard, mouse,
> >> > hub) will do to at least see that it was recognized and configured.
> >> >
> >> > IIRC, the sequence is:
> >> > 1. detect that a device is connected to the port
> >> > 2. enable the port
> >> > 3. Assign a USB ID with a setup packet
> >> > 4. query for device type and strings
> >> > 5. If a suitable block device, load the payload.
> >> >
> >> > 5 used to be a stream object (like in the old LinuxBIOS code) handed to
> >> > a copy of the the ELF loader. the read method set up the request and
> >> > called into the USB polling loop. I'm guessing that's
> >> >
> >> > One potential issue there is that control of the physical port between
> >> > UHCI or OHCI (for 1.1) and EHCI (for 2.0) is determined by a bit in a
> >> > register. I'm not sure what happens if it's set wrong, but I suspect it
> >> > could look like your debug output.
> >> >
> >> > was this exact setup working before r54? One possability is that the USB
> >> > code always had a bug that wasn't visible when allocations were quietly
> >> > double the requested size.
> >> So I tried a low speed device (old usb mouse) and it did something
> >> different, it still errored out of course (because it is not a drive)
> >> but I think it was working the way it is supposed to??? Anyways I also
> >> tried a USB 2.0 flash drive with no success. I think what is happening
> >> here is, it is not falling back to low speed UHCI......see
> >> attachment....I don't know where to go from here....
> Thanks - Joe
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
More information about the coreboot