On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 4:01 AM, Alan Stern <stern@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 17 May 2012, Oncaphillis wrote: > >> > I suspect the values for "wait" are much too small. The EHCI >> > specification doesn't really say what they should be. Try >> > replacing the entire code snippet above with >> > >> > udelay(1000); >> > >> > and see if that makes any difference. >> >> This looks very promising indeed. I've inserted the second patch >> of Huan Li (not the one which killed the kernel) and your >> modification and have a stable run for more then 8 hours. >> >> I assume the modified udelay is not supposed to be a permanent >> fix for a production kernel. So how do we proceed ? > > A proper fix will have to wait. It would require a bunch of other > changes which are in my pipeline. > > For the moment, you might be able to experiment to see how low the > delay can get before the problem starts to appear. 1000 may be more > than you need. Does 250 work? > > Huajun Li can submit his second patch regardless. I think it's not > related to your problem but it makes sense. > > Alan Stern > My part was submitted for review, thanks. -- 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
