[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48DA9263.5060103@ru.mvista.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 23:17:55 +0400
From: Sergei Shtylyov <sshtylyov@...mvista.com>
To: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
Cc: avorontsov@...mvista.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, greg@...ah.com,
linux-usb@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...abs.org, leoli@...escale.com, timur@...escale.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] USB: driver for Freescale QUICC Engine USB Host Controller
Hello.
David Brownell wrote:
>>>> ... then the root hub emulation is completely pointless.
>>>It isn't. We always should emulate the root hub. The root hub
>>>is part and parcel of any USB Host. Even the one-port one.
>> Hm, maybe that's what USB core thinks (because UHCI/OHCI/EHCI all
>>have it) but e.g. MUSB doesn't have the root hub registers...
> Only the OHCI registers have bit positions matching what the USB
> spec says for hub status bits.
Oh, didn't know that.
> Everything else, including musb_hdrc, has the relevant status encoded in other bits.
Yes, but I thought that if there are no multiple ports, having the hub is
just pointless.
>>I looked at the core and figured that USB core seems to use the root hub
>>interface for port PM, etc. and expects it to bee present, so it seems
>>unavoidable indeed... :-/
> Or more fundamentally: for enumeration. "Unavoidable" is correct. ;)
Not sure what you mean here but I guess having a root hub alows an uniform
model of controlling the ports... anyway, USB specifies that it must be
present in the host.
WBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists