On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:21:53AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote: > > On Thu, 17 Jan 2013, Felipe Balbi wrote: > > > > > > Bits 31 & 30 from PORTSC register were allocated by our SOC designers > > > > to inform the host controller about the PHY type to be used. > > > > > > Wow, that's something you should never do. PORTSC register belongs to > > > the EHCI controller and those bits are reserved for future use and they > > > *MUST* return zero. I wouldn't be surprised if current EHCI driver > > > assumes those bits will be zero and/or makes sure they're set to zero > > > when writing to PORTSC register. > > > > In fact, those bits _have_ been assigned an official purpose in the > > EHCI-1.1 addendum. Presumably the Tegra hardware only supports > > EHCI-1.0. > > I see, they're used for device addresses now. > > How can we make sure on Tegra systems we won't use those top two bits ? ehci-hcd doesn't use those device address bits at all. They are meant for the LPM (Link Power Management) extension, which ehci-hcd doesn't support. Even if support gets added in the future, we'll know that the LPM capability isn't present unless bit 17 in the HCCPARAMS register is set. On the other hand, what I wrote earlier about not overwriting those bits wasn't quite correct. ehci-hcd _does_ overwrite them with 0's during shutdown or removal. I don't know if this will matter for the Tegra platform. Alan Stern -- 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
