From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Jan 12 08:07:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D4F7D33; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:07:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mta05.bitpro.no (mta05.bitpro.no [92.42.64.202]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143031E5F; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:07:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.lockless.no (mail.lockless.no [46.29.221.38]) by mta05.bitpro.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2031F17FCB5; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:07:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.lockless.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B34E8E99F5; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:08:07 +0100 (CET) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.4 (20090625) (Debian) at lockless.no Received: from mail.lockless.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.lockless.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PdLCDcmk1RPI; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:08:06 +0100 (CET) Received: from laptop015.home.selasky.org (cm-176.74.213.204.customer.telag.net [176.74.213.204]) by mail.lockless.no (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 76EDE8E99F1; Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:08:06 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <52D24D7B.3060204@bitfrost.no> Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 09:08:27 +0100 From: Hans Petter Selasky Organization: Bitfrost A/S User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alex Goncharov , freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org, freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: Re: usb/185628: usbd_req_re_enumerate set address failed USB_ERR_STALLED for Seagate USB drives between r259425 and r260321 References: <201401120610.s0C6A1Fx064199@freefall.freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201401120610.s0C6A1Fx064199@freefall.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2014 08:07:24 -0000 On 01/12/14 07:10, Alex Goncharov wrote: > The following reply was made to PR usb/185628; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Alex Goncharov > To: "freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org" , > Hans Petter Selasky , freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.org > Cc: > Subject: Re: usb/185628: usbd_req_re_enumerate set address failed USB_ERR_STALLED for Seagate USB drives between r259425 and r260321 > Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2014 21:58:02 -0800 (PST) > > --2120775178-1643984294-1389506282=:33519 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > ,-- On Fri, 1/10/14, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > ,-- On 01/10/14 12:49, Alex Goncharov wrote: > >> Maybe; but think about the fact correlations: the fact of the two > >> system's upgrade, two identical Seagate units, and other HDDs being > >> non-stalled. > > > > If you are running EHCI, there has been no changes in the USB stack, > > Apparently, there have been; this is what causes the bogus error: > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > r259454 | hselasky | 2013-12-16 03:51:58 -0500 (Mon, 16 Dec 2013) | 11 lines > > MFC r244503 and r246565: > > Make sure all USB drivers allocate buffer memory > through the USB API and/or busdma. > > The following assumptions have been made: > umass - buffers passed from CAM/SCSI layer are OK > network - mbufs are OK. > > Some other nits while at it. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > I am attaching the code difference for the two relevant files > > ---------------------------------------- > M sys/dev/usb/storage/ustorage_fs.c > M sys/dev/usb/usb_msctest.c > ---------------------------------------- > > in this change set, skipping the irrelevant 'sys/dev/usb/wlan' ones. > > Can this be fixed reasonably soon, please? (I miss my HDDs :) > Hi, Can you do "usbdump -i usbusX -s 65536 -vvv" where is X is the controller unit which the seagate drive attaches to, before and after reverting patch "259454". I need to see what the difference is in the USB level, because patch "259454" should not affect the protocol data only the timing. --HPS