From owner-freebsd-firewire@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Aug 19 17:31:33 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43EED16A4BF for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:31:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns.koganei.wide.ad.jp (koganei.wide.ad.jp [202.249.37.254]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEA543FA3 for ; Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:31:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ikob@koganei.wide.ad.jp) Received: from koganei.wide.ad.jp (tweedledee.koganei.wide.ad.jp [202.249.37.72]) (authenticated bits=0)h7K0VT4v004243; Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:31:29 +0900 (JST) (envelope-from ikob@koganei.wide.ad.jp) Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 09:31:40 +0900 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: Hidetoshi Shimokawa From: Katsushi Kobayashi In-Reply-To: Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) cc: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OHCI 1.2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-firewire@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Vendors pre-release coordination List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Aug 2003 00:31:33 -0000 Hi, I don't have any information for OHCI1.2. In my previous experience, some OHCI chip set does not work when not zeroing undefined register field. I thought this kind of issue is "sometimes" led by the difference of implementation, not by the specification. I have quick reviewed TSB82AA2 technical document published by TI. The document re-iterates the OHCI information, not only describes TI specific issues. On Wednesday, August 20, 2003, at 09:08 AM, Hidetoshi Shimokawa wrote: > At Wed, 20 Aug 2003 01:56:26 +0900, > Katsushi Kobayashi wrote: >> >> What chipset is your target ? >> >> I am not sure whether OHCI2.0 is ready or not. >> >> For example, TI's 1394b link layer controller (TSB82AA2) has some >> special >> registers the extension of OHCI1.1. TI called it as OHCI1.1+. >> >> Thanks, > > Yes, the target is TSB82AA2. The OHCI1.2 is listed as reference in its > datasheet(1.3 Related Documents). It seems that there are some > extenstions(*1) in stream packet format in OHCI1.1+/1.2 rather than > registers. As you know, OHCI packet format is somewhat different from > 1394 packet format. > > Do you have any information about difference between 1.1 and 1.1+ or > 1.2? > > (*) I observed some strange behavior if we don't fill reserved field > with zero. > >> >> On 2003.Aug.20, at 12:37 AM, Hidetoshi Shimokawa wrote: >> >>> Does anyone know where I can get the 1394 OHCI 1.2 specification? >>> >>> 1394b chips seems to use some fields reserved in OHCI1.1. >>> > > /\ Hidetoshi Shimokawa > \/ simokawa@sat.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp > PGP public key: http://www.sat.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/~simokawa/pgp.html