Patrick Shirkey wrote: > > if the kernel does have support for xHCI, we assume that > > the user will prefer xHCI over EHCI if the motherboard has xHCI. > > Obviously the solution above should suffice for my purposes but out > of interest is it viable to make the switch accessible to run time > configuration? I don't think it makes sense to expose the port routing to user space, but I think it would make sense to route ports to the EHCI HC(s) when xhci-hcd is unbound, and vice versa. I'm not sure what the best implementation for this would be. Would it be possible for ehci-hcd to call into xhci-hcd code, even if xhci-hcd is not currently bound anywhere? One possibility is to add code to both drivers which gets called on unbind and which routes ports to the respective other controller type, but that doesn't really seem like a great solution. It would be nicer to have a single entry point for the (re)routing. Alan, what are your thoughts on that? //Peter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
