| Message ID | 20200512150019.25903-2-alcooperx@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add XHCI, EHCI and OHCI support for Broadcom STB SoS's | expand |
On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: > Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller > on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 > devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile > has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver > initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 > device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking > above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of mess, sorry. thanks, greg k-h
On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: >> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller >> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 >> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile >> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver >> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 >> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking >> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. > > What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a > different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need > to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of > mess, sorry. I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and ohci-hcd: MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); Al, do you want to test that?
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: > >> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller > >> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 > >> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile > >> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver > >> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 > >> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking > >> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. > > > > What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a > > different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need > > to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of > > mess, sorry. > > I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the > module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something > like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: > > MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); > > and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and > ohci-hcd: > > MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); JFYI: not all user space support this (alas, but that's current state of affairs), OTOH I don't really care about those which do not support it (Busybox).
On 5/13/2020 8:26 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: >>>> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller >>>> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 >>>> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile >>>> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver >>>> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 >>>> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking >>>> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. >>> >>> What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a >>> different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need >>> to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of >>> mess, sorry. >> >> I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the >> module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something >> like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: >> >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); >> >> and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and >> ohci-hcd: >> >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); > > JFYI: not all user space support this (alas, but that's current state of > affairs), OTOH I don't really care about those which do not support it > (Busybox). I know that Gentoo's initramfs tool does not support it, however given there are no symbols being cross referenced, I am not sure how to best support this other than using these hints, and possibly making use of device links too?
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: > >> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller > >> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 > >> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile > >> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver > >> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 > >> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking > >> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. > > > > What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a > > different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need > > to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of > > mess, sorry. > > I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the > module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something > like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: > > MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); > > and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and > ohci-hcd: > > MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); That's a nice start, but what happens if that isn't honored? This really needs to work properly for any order as you never can guarantee module/driver loading order in a system of modules. thanks, greg k-h
On 5/13/2020 9:27 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> >> >> On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: >>>> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller >>>> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 >>>> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile >>>> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver >>>> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 >>>> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking >>>> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. >>> >>> What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a >>> different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need >>> to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of >>> mess, sorry. >> >> I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the >> module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something >> like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: >> >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); >> >> and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and >> ohci-hcd: >> >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); > > That's a nice start, but what happens if that isn't honored? This > really needs to work properly for any order as you never can guarantee > module/driver loading order in a system of modules. I also suggested that device links may help, though I am not sure. What do you suggest to be done?
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:31:11AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > On 5/13/2020 9:27 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: > >>>> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller > >>>> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 > >>>> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile > >>>> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver > >>>> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 > >>>> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking > >>>> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. > >>> > >>> What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a > >>> different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need > >>> to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of > >>> mess, sorry. > >> > >> I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the > >> module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something > >> like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: > >> > >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); > >> > >> and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and > >> ohci-hcd: > >> > >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); > > > > That's a nice start, but what happens if that isn't honored? This > > really needs to work properly for any order as you never can guarantee > > module/driver loading order in a system of modules. > > I also suggested that device links may help, though I am not sure. What > do you suggest to be done? No idea. device links will help if you defer the probe properly until you see the proper drivers binding correctly. good luck! greg k-h
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:05:05PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:31:11AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > > > > > On 5/13/2020 9:27 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: > > >>>> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller > > >>>> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 > > >>>> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile > > >>>> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver > > >>>> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 > > >>>> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking > > >>>> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. > > >>> > > >>> What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a > > >>> different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need > > >>> to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of > > >>> mess, sorry. > > >> > > >> I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the > > >> module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something > > >> like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: > > >> > > >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); > > >> > > >> and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and > > >> ohci-hcd: > > >> > > >> MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); > > > > > > That's a nice start, but what happens if that isn't honored? This > > > really needs to work properly for any order as you never can guarantee > > > module/driver loading order in a system of modules. > > > > I also suggested that device links may help, though I am not sure. What > > do you suggest to be done? > > No idea. device links will help if you defer the probe properly until > you see the proper drivers binding correctly. I suspect that in general there is no way to do this properly. We can't modify ehci-hcd and ohci-hcd to make them wait. In fact, for all they know, xhci-hcd will _never_ be loaded. One thing that might be possible (although not all platforms may support it) is if xhci-hcd could somehow disconnect all devices attached to a peer port when it starts up. But that would be disruptive to any devices that aren't USB-3. We faced a very similar ordering problem between ehci-hcd and [ou]hci-hcd many years ago, and we never found a good solution. We did arrange the link order so that ehci-hcd precedes the others, and we added a warning message to ehci-hcd which gets printed if the module initialization routine runs after [ou]hci-hcd is loaded. Also, there are MODULE_SOFTDEP lines in ohci-pci.c and uhci-pci.c. Alan Stern
On 5/13/2020 10:39 AM, Alan Stern wrote: > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:05:05PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:31:11AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 5/13/2020 9:27 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: >>>>>>> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller >>>>>>> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 >>>>>>> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile >>>>>>> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver >>>>>>> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 >>>>>>> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking >>>>>>> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a >>>>>> different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need >>>>>> to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of >>>>>> mess, sorry. >>>>> >>>>> I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the >>>>> module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something >>>>> like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: >>>>> >>>>> MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); >>>>> >>>>> and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and >>>>> ohci-hcd: >>>>> >>>>> MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); >>>> >>>> That's a nice start, but what happens if that isn't honored? This >>>> really needs to work properly for any order as you never can guarantee >>>> module/driver loading order in a system of modules. >>> >>> I also suggested that device links may help, though I am not sure. What >>> do you suggest to be done? >> >> No idea. device links will help if you defer the probe properly until >> you see the proper drivers binding correctly. > > I suspect that in general there is no way to do this properly. > > We can't modify ehci-hcd and ohci-hcd to make them wait. In fact, for > all they know, xhci-hcd will _never_ be loaded. > > One thing that might be possible (although not all platforms may support > it) is if xhci-hcd could somehow disconnect all devices attached to a > peer port when it starts up. But that would be disruptive to any > devices that aren't USB-3. > > We faced a very similar ordering problem between ehci-hcd and > [ou]hci-hcd many years ago, and we never found a good solution. > We did arrange the link order so that ehci-hcd precedes the others, and > we added a warning message to ehci-hcd which gets printed if the module > initialization routine runs after [ou]hci-hcd is loaded. Also, there > are MODULE_SOFTDEP lines in ohci-pci.c and uhci-pci.c. Given that these modules are used on specific SoC platforms, where we usually provide a reference implementation of user space and kernel space and documentation, it seems to me that the MODULE_SOFTDEP(), despite being a hint and best effort from user space module loaders is probably acceptable.
On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 1:46 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/13/2020 10:39 AM, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:05:05PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:31:11AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 5/13/2020 9:27 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > >>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: > >>>>>>> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller > >>>>>>> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 > >>>>>>> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile > >>>>>>> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver > >>>>>>> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 > >>>>>>> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking > >>>>>>> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a > >>>>>> different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need > >>>>>> to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of > >>>>>> mess, sorry. > >>>>> > >>>>> I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the > >>>>> module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something > >>>>> like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: > >>>>> > >>>>> MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); > >>>>> > >>>>> and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and > >>>>> ohci-hcd: > >>>>> > >>>>> MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); > >>>> > >>>> That's a nice start, but what happens if that isn't honored? This > >>>> really needs to work properly for any order as you never can guarantee > >>>> module/driver loading order in a system of modules. > >>> > >>> I also suggested that device links may help, though I am not sure. What > >>> do you suggest to be done? > >> > >> No idea. device links will help if you defer the probe properly until > >> you see the proper drivers binding correctly. > > > > I suspect that in general there is no way to do this properly. > > > > We can't modify ehci-hcd and ohci-hcd to make them wait. In fact, for > > all they know, xhci-hcd will _never_ be loaded. > > > > One thing that might be possible (although not all platforms may support > > it) is if xhci-hcd could somehow disconnect all devices attached to a > > peer port when it starts up. But that would be disruptive to any > > devices that aren't USB-3. > > > > We faced a very similar ordering problem between ehci-hcd and > > [ou]hci-hcd many years ago, and we never found a good solution. > > We did arrange the link order so that ehci-hcd precedes the others, and > > we added a warning message to ehci-hcd which gets printed if the module > > initialization routine runs after [ou]hci-hcd is loaded. Also, there > > are MODULE_SOFTDEP lines in ohci-pci.c and uhci-pci.c. > > Given that these modules are used on specific SoC platforms, where we > usually provide a reference implementation of user space and kernel > space and documentation, it seems to me that the MODULE_SOFTDEP(), > despite being a hint and best effort from user space module loaders is > probably acceptable. > -- > Florian What I found in the past is that things work. For example if the ehci driver starts first, the USB device will come up as a 2.0 device and when the XHCI driver comes up the device will switch to 3.0. I've see the same thing happen if OHCI starts before EHCI. It's just that there are some poorly behaved USB devices that have trouble with this. Al
Greg, Alan, The other 4 related patches were accepted into usb-next and I just realized that this one didn't make it. This patch will not fix the "insmod out of order" issue, but will help our controllers work with some poorly behaved USB devices when the drivers are builtin. Thanks Al On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 3:42 PM Alan Cooper <alcooperx@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 1:46 PM Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 5/13/2020 10:39 AM, Alan Stern wrote: > > > On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 07:05:05PM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 09:31:11AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 5/13/2020 9:27 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >>>> On Wed, May 13, 2020 at 08:08:07AM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On 5/13/2020 5:26 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > > >>>>>> On Tue, May 12, 2020 at 11:00:15AM -0400, Al Cooper wrote: > > >>>>>>> Some BRCMSTB USB chips have an XHCI, EHCI and OHCI controller > > >>>>>>> on the same port where XHCI handles 3.0 devices, EHCI handles 2.0 > > >>>>>>> devices and OHCI handles <2.0 devices. Currently the Makefile > > >>>>>>> has XHCI linking at the bottom which will result in the XHIC driver > > >>>>>>> initalizing after the EHCI and OHCI drivers and any installed 3.0 > > >>>>>>> device will be seen as a 2.0 device. Moving the XHCI linking > > >>>>>>> above the EHCI and OHCI linking fixes the issue. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> What happens if all of these are modules and they are loaded in a > > >>>>>> different order? This makefile change will not help with that, you need > > >>>>>> to have logic in the code in order to properly coordinate this type of > > >>>>>> mess, sorry. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> I believe we should be using module soft dependencies to instruct the > > >>>>> module loaders to load the modules in the correct order, so something > > >>>>> like this would do (not tested) for xhci-plat-hcd.c: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> MODULE_SOFTDEP("post: ehci-hcd ohci-hcd"); > > >>>>> > > >>>>> and I am not sure whether we need to add the opposite for ehci-hcd and > > >>>>> ohci-hcd: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> MODULE_SOFTDEP("pre: xhci-plat-hcd"); > > >>>> > > >>>> That's a nice start, but what happens if that isn't honored? This > > >>>> really needs to work properly for any order as you never can guarantee > > >>>> module/driver loading order in a system of modules. > > >>> > > >>> I also suggested that device links may help, though I am not sure. What > > >>> do you suggest to be done? > > >> > > >> No idea. device links will help if you defer the probe properly until > > >> you see the proper drivers binding correctly. > > > > > > I suspect that in general there is no way to do this properly. > > > > > > We can't modify ehci-hcd and ohci-hcd to make them wait. In fact, for > > > all they know, xhci-hcd will _never_ be loaded. > > > > > > One thing that might be possible (although not all platforms may support > > > it) is if xhci-hcd could somehow disconnect all devices attached to a > > > peer port when it starts up. But that would be disruptive to any > > > devices that aren't USB-3. > > > > > > We faced a very similar ordering problem between ehci-hcd and > > > [ou]hci-hcd many years ago, and we never found a good solution. > > > We did arrange the link order so that ehci-hcd precedes the others, and > > > we added a warning message to ehci-hcd which gets printed if the module > > > initialization routine runs after [ou]hci-hcd is loaded. Also, there > > > are MODULE_SOFTDEP lines in ohci-pci.c and uhci-pci.c. > > > > Given that these modules are used on specific SoC platforms, where we > > usually provide a reference implementation of user space and kernel > > space and documentation, it seems to me that the MODULE_SOFTDEP(), > > despite being a hint and best effort from user space module loaders is > > probably acceptable. > > -- > > Florian > > What I found in the past is that things work. For example if the ehci > driver starts first, the USB device will come up as a 2.0 device and > when the XHCI driver comes up the device will switch to 3.0. I've see > the same thing happen if OHCI starts before EHCI. It's just that there > are some poorly behaved USB devices that have trouble with this. > > Al
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? A: No. Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:29:45PM -0400, Alan Cooper wrote: > Greg, Alan, > > The other 4 related patches were accepted into usb-next and I just > realized that this one didn't make it. This patch will not fix the > "insmod out of order" issue, but will help our controllers work with > some poorly behaved USB devices when the drivers are builtin. As it doesn't solve the real issue, I did not accept this so that you all can continue to work on creating a real solution that works for both situations (built in and as modules.) I thought I said that already... thanks, greg k-h
On 5/20/2020 11:09 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. > Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? > A: Top-posting. > Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? > > A: No. > Q: Should I include quotations after my reply? > > http://daringfireball.net/2007/07/on_top > > On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 01:29:45PM -0400, Alan Cooper wrote: >> Greg, Alan, >> >> The other 4 related patches were accepted into usb-next and I just >> realized that this one didn't make it. This patch will not fix the >> "insmod out of order" issue, but will help our controllers work with >> some poorly behaved USB devices when the drivers are builtin. > > As it doesn't solve the real issue, I did not accept this so that you > all can continue to work on creating a real solution that works for both > situations (built in and as modules.) > > I thought I said that already... Your message was not clear to me at least, I understood your message as: I acknowledge the problem you are trying to solve and accept Al's solution for the case where modules are built-in, and another solution should be found for when the modules are built as loadable modules. But okay, your message is clear now :).
diff --git a/drivers/usb/host/Makefile b/drivers/usb/host/Makefile index b191361257cc..a7f0b8ff7179 100644 --- a/drivers/usb/host/Makefile +++ b/drivers/usb/host/Makefile @@ -37,6 +37,16 @@ endif obj-$(CONFIG_USB_PCI) += pci-quirks.o +# NOTE: BRCMSTB systems require that xhci driver be linked before the +# ehci/ohci drivers because they share a port and need the XHCI driver +# to come up first to properly enumerate 3.0 devices. +obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_HCD) += xhci-hcd.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PCI) += xhci-pci.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PLATFORM) += xhci-plat-hcd.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_HISTB) += xhci-histb.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_MTK) += xhci-mtk.o +obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_TEGRA) += xhci-tegra.o + obj-$(CONFIG_USB_EHCI_HCD) += ehci-hcd.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_EHCI_PCI) += ehci-pci.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_EHCI_HCD_PLATFORM) += ehci-platform.o @@ -69,12 +79,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_USB_OHCI_HCD_DAVINCI) += ohci-da8xx.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_UHCI_HCD) += uhci-hcd.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_FHCI_HCD) += fhci.o -obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_HCD) += xhci-hcd.o -obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PCI) += xhci-pci.o -obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_PLATFORM) += xhci-plat-hcd.o -obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_HISTB) += xhci-histb.o -obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_MTK) += xhci-mtk.o -obj-$(CONFIG_USB_XHCI_TEGRA) += xhci-tegra.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_SL811_HCD) += sl811-hcd.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_SL811_CS) += sl811_cs.o obj-$(CONFIG_USB_U132_HCD) += u132-hcd.o