From owner-freebsd-usb@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 1 07:30:24 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A58C96C for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail.turbocat.net (mail.turbocat.net [IPv6:2a01:4f8:d16:4514::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07E7D374 for ; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:30:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from laptop015.home.selasky.org (cm-176.74.213.204.customer.telag.net [176.74.213.204]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.turbocat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F3B631FE023; Wed, 1 Oct 2014 09:30:21 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <542BAD89.60508@selasky.org> Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:30:17 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: huanghwh@gmail.com Subject: Re: xhci problem on UEFI boot MacBookPro 11,3 References: <542A92AF.8040606@selasky.org> <542AA716.3070701@selasky.org> <542AAEE2.70206@selasky.org> <542AB58D.9080602@selasky.org> <542BA063.3060105@selasky.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "freebsd-usb@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-usb@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD support for USB List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2014 07:30:24 -0000 On 10/01/14 09:24, Huang Wen Hui wrote: > verbose dmesg with patch, hw.usb.xhci.debug=16 and hw.usb.xhci.use_polling=1 > > http://sw.gddsn.org.cn/freebsd/hps-bios-message2.txt > http://sw.gddsn.org.cn/freebsd/hps-uefi-message2.txt > Hi, Can you join #bsdusb on EF-net? BTW: Why are the time-stamps so different in the two logs above? --HPS