From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 29 18:22:31 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C6016A4CE for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:22:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from avscan2.sentex.ca (avscan2.sentex.ca [199.212.134.19]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B582743D46 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:22:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from localhost (localhost.sentex.ca [127.0.0.1]) by avscan2.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9TIMUrx085905; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:22:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from avscan2.sentex.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (avscan2.sentex.ca [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 85835-01; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:22:30 -0400 (EDT) Received: from lava.sentex.ca (pyroxene.sentex.ca [199.212.134.18]) by avscan2.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9TIMU17085883; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:22:30 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Received: from simian.sentex.net (simeon.sentex.ca [192.168.43.27]) by lava.sentex.ca (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i9TIMMXU009714; Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:22:23 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mike@sentex.net) Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.0.20041029141407.06fc82d8@64.7.153.2> X-Sender: mdtpop@64.7.153.2 (Unverified) X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:29:32 -0400 To: Michael Nottebrock From: Mike Tancsa In-Reply-To: <200410292002.52978.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> References: <20041029075930.GG701@marvin.riggiland.au> <200410291930.30626.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <6.1.2.0.0.20041029134511.04ff09a8@64.7.153.2> <200410292002.52978.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at avscan2b cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EHCI considered harmful? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 18:22:31 -0000 At 02:02 PM 29/10/2004, Michael Nottebrock wrote: >On Friday, 29. October 2004 19:47, Mike Tancsa wrote: > > At 01:30 PM 29/10/2004, Michael Nottebrock wrote: > > > > On my Intel 865 box, its pretty easy for me to lock the system up with > > > > 2 different types of USB key drives (Lexar and SANDISK). The system > > > > also sporadically locks up at boot time, if I have a Keyspan USB-Serial > > > > device plugged in using EHCI. For new users, I think its more > > > > important that the system works. > > > > > >There are similar issues all over USB in FreeBSD, that's not a good > > > rationale to leave ehci out of GENERIC. > > > > With the base USB ? Regular USB works just fine for me on the same > > hardware. > >USB 2.0 is hardly off-base or irregular. Just the fact that you're making >this >distinction tells me that ehci support on FreeBSD is getting not enough >exposure. I'm afraid if it'll remain hidden like it is now, it'll never get >into any decent shape. I dont think breaking people's working setup will all of a sudden get someone to maintain it. The man page itself states, BUGS The driver is not finished and is quite buggy. With EHCI in the kernel, my machine is unusuable. With 1.x yes, there are certainly bugs that I run into (e.g. KERN/72935) but most do not seem to prevent the box from just booting. > > Can you quantify what you mean by similar ? > >There is one rather recent PR about a crash with a 1.1 device (PR 63621), But thats from march 2004 and on RELENG_4. My 2 USB key drives work on RELENG_5, but not RELENG_4. Perhaps the issues in PR63621 are not there in RELENG_5... >a >"Detaching USB stick crashes BETA4/BETA5" thread about one month ago and >searching -CURRENT for mails with "usb" subject lines turns up an awful lot >of issues, bugs, hangs, crashes, you name it, pretty much all of them on 1.1 >hardware. I think EHCI would only make it worse. 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. ---Mike