On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 01:19:16PM +0200, Mathias Nyman wrote: > On 14.3.2023 16.00, Brian Morrison wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Mar 2023 12:06:59 +0200 > > Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > In your v6.2 logs the usb bus numbers are interleaved, in the v6.1 > > > they are not. xhci driver registers two usb buses per host, one > > > High-Speed and one SuperSpeed. > > > > > > This change could be due to 6.2 commit: > > > > > > 4c2604a9a689 usb: xhci-pci: Set PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS > > > > > > Not sure why it would cause this regression, but worth testing it. > > > > I have now reverted the above commit, it's only the one line in > > xhci-pci.c and it took a couple of hours to rebuild my kernel rpms which > > wasn't too bad. > > > > With this change all of my USB devices are present again and the 3 > > /dev/ttyUSB* nodes are all present and usable. > > > > Thanks for testing. > So setting PROBE_PREFER_ASYNCHRONOUS does trigger this issue for Renesas xHCI. > > Was it so that with the devices connected to the Intel host everything worked > on 6.2 kernel? > > Just to make sure that this is a vendor specific host issue and not generic xhci > driver issue. > > If we can't quickly figure out the real reason for this then we just have to > revert that patch. > > > I found this in the linux-usb list archives: > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4569289.html > > > > and the first part of this patch series here: > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/kernel/msg4569288.html > > > > Should both of these patches be reverted? I assume so but I don't think > > I have anything that uses an ehci device to test it. > > > > Probably just the xhci one. I haven't heard of any ehci issues. > > Alan (cc) would know better if there are any new odd ehci issues that can > be traced back to the async probe change. I haven't heard of any problems with EHCI. Alan Stern
