On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:07:51AM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:10:02AM -0700, Greg KH wrote: > > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 04:29:16PM -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote: > > > This switchover mechanism is there to support users who do a custom > > > install of certain non-Linux operating systems that don't have official > > > USB 3.0 support. By default, the ports are under EHCI, SuperSpeed > > > terminations are off, and USB 3.0 devices will show up under the EHCI > > > controller at reduced speeds. (This was more palatable for the marketing > > > folks than having completely dead USB 3.0 ports if no xHCI drivers are > > > available.) Users should be able to turn on xHCI by default through a > > > BIOS option, but users are happiest when they don't have to change random > > > BIOS settings. > > > > I can't frickin belive this. > > > > Well, I guess I can, but that's just so horrible I really can't express > > how messed up this is. > > I'm not fond of it either (understatement of the week), but they were > already in the middle of architecting this solution by the time I even > heard about it. Don't shoot the messenger? Oh I didn't mean to shoot the messenger at all, sorry if it came across that way. I know you are handling it the best that you can, it was a complaint about the hardware design decision. > > And the USB-IF gives us MAJOR crap[1] about Linux developers > > participating in the specification work, yet other operating systems > > require horrible hardware hacks like this in order just to have them to > > work with their platforms. > > > > [1] They just kicked some Linux kernel developers out of a working group > > for a new USB device specification because they don't trust us to abide > > by the legal agreements we signed. If I was a paranoid person, I would > > think that some company was out to get us because we showed them up > > again with USB support first-to-market. > > I don't think that's related to this patch, but yeah, I'm not happy > about the USB-IF thing either. I would hope that it is not related, but I do know we have made a number of people upset that we have support first, and that can't be helpful toward their attitude toward us. > However, the USB-IF really only wants employees or hired consultants > of USB-IF member companies to participate, and those people really > weren't Linux Foundation employees. But the legal requirements that the USB-IF were bound to those developers, just as much as they were for any other participant in the specification process. For them to claim that it somehow was different from a legal standpoint (which they did), I feel is disingenuous. > It's messed up, but that's how they want to make money. :( We are paying them money, that's the really messed up part. Now because of this, it looks like they are going to get less money, which isn't what they really want I would think. > I really wish it had worked out, because Linux developers do need to > have a say in the specification process. I totally agree. > I'm just not sure if it's worth trying anymore. :-/ I'm about to give up as well. I think I'll try one more round with the USB-IF, and if that doesn't work, downgrade the Linux Foundation USB-IF membership to just have to pay for the vendor id and that's it. thanks, greg k-h -- 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
