On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:33:42PM -0500, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > On 11/18/2014 03:47 PM, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 03:41:43PM -0500, Jorge Ramirez-Ortiz wrote: > >>>>> you have no clue what these mean, do you ? How about reading the USB > >>>>> specification of even http://www.beyondlogic.org/usbnutshell/usb1.shtml > >>>> Unfortunately I do. > >>>> It was easier to temporarily hack the driver code for a test - while I > >>>> was at it - rather than modifying the host code. > >>>> Since you asked for them, I though you would read the logs and wonder > >>>> where the funny ids where coming from. > >>> why do you even need to hack the host driver for these ? The driver > >>> shows a Printer Class interface and the linux host side driver should > >>> bind to it without any issues. > >> the hack was on the gadget side. > >> > >> the usbhost test code in charge of sending the file to the device had the wrong ids. > >> to save time -since I was modifying the gadget driver code and only for the > >> tests (it is not part of the final patch) - I hacked those ids on the printer.c > >> file. > >> but anyway. lets move on. I removed those, recompiled the usb host code and sent > >> the new traces. > > then the host side needs a fix because it shouldn't really care about > > the device ID, rather it should care about the class being printer. > > absolutely. > however if you use libusb_open_device_with_vid_pid then well, these things happen... heh :-) > >>>> That hack above would have given you an answer: so I kind of know what > >>>> the ids are for. honestly. anyway, will send the new logs - it took > >>>> me a while to find and modify the host test code. > >>> Which host test code ? Why don't you just use lpr or even cat file > > >>> /dev/lp0 or something like that ? > >> it is some proprietary code that links libusb -part of a different project: it > >> was useful as it generated some metrics I was interested in. > > I would be surprised if lpr doesn't work for the same purpose. > > > >>>>> do you want to debug that and find the culprit since you're already at > >>>>> it ? > >>>> probably: I still need to get used to this process, thanks for bearing > >>>> with me on this. > >>> no problem. > >>> > >>>> I spoke to Ricardo Ribalda three months ago while I was doing this > >>>> stuff. but yes, I might work on this -after I finish with this > >>>> patch!- since I have access to the hardware locally. > >>> cool, that'll help. > >> notice that the original PLX driver was still far from the theoretical 5Gbps > >> target (I was expecting to measure at least 3Gbps and could only get 1Gbps). > >> So 1Gbps should be the target to meet on the kernel.org net2280 - do you agree? > > this depends on a whole bunch of things. Mainline is a lot different > > from PLX's kernel tree, I'm sure. > > > > It also depends on how many PCIe lanes you're using. Just because USB3 > > guarantees 5Gbps bandwidth, if you use a 1x PCIe connector, you'll never > > get that ;-) > > > > yes, that is why I purchased a Lenovo ThinkServer TS140 just for this > integration. it has one x16 Gen3 PCIe slot, one x1 Gen2 PCIe and one > x16 Gen2 PCIe (x4 signal). so this should be enough. right, assuming PLX PCIe card actually supports that :-) > on the host side, I have good server as well. So really, there is no > excuse to not get this right unless there is a problem in the plx > silicon but from the Windows based metrics that I saw I dont think so. > The only think I am missing is the USB3 analyzer I used to have in my > previous company. yeah, that helps a lot indeed. I'm always using my trusty beagle 5000. -- balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
