From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Sep 21 16:04:47 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2225B16A4EF for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:04:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68BB643FD7 for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2003 16:04:45 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) h8LN4aFs004763 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:04:39 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h8LN4XWZ044881 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:04:34 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8LN4XrY075440; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:04:33 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h8LN4VRH075439; Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:04:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 01:04:31 +0200 From: Bernd Walter To: Lars Eggert Message-ID: <20030921230430.GA21665@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <3F57B0A0.2040508@isi.edu> <20030905072228.3def6a8b.steve@sohara.org> <3F63E246.8030801@isi.edu> <20030915190350.3e0fe0ec.steve@sohara.org> <20030918165710.GB19984@genius.tao.org.uk> <3F69FFC9.80308@isi.edu> <20030918231742.GB41432@genius.tao.org.uk> <3F6DE165.1020404@isi.edu> <20030921220414.GZ21665@cicely12.cicely.de> <3F6E26FC.30603@isi.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F6E26FC.30603@isi.edu> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.1-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: usb-bsd@eleetbsd.org cc: ticso@cicely.de cc: current Subject: Re: X10 Wireless Technology Inc USB Receiver X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2003 23:04:47 -0000 On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 03:32:28PM -0700, Lars Eggert wrote: > Bernd, > > Bernd Walter wrote: > >On Sun, Sep 21, 2003 at 10:35:33AM -0700, Lars Eggert wrote: > >> > >>static char init1[]= { 0x80, 0x01, 0x00, 0x20, 0x14 }; > >>static char init2[]= { 0x80, 0x01, 0x00, 0x20, 0x14, 0x20, 0x20, 0x20 }; > > > >Are you shure that the above is correct data for the device? > >The IO error could also be returned from the device. > > Relatively. It's in the Linux driver, and I've used a Windows USB > snooper to verify that ATI's Windows driver writes the same two chunks. > > >What does USB_DEBUG with hw.usb.debug=2 and hw.usb.ugen.debug=2 say? > >Bevor I download the complete source you mentioned, can you give us the > >lines that lead to the above command? > > I'm away from that machine until later, I'll make sure to send the > output when I get back. > > The Linux driver is actually pretty short. Here's the source: > http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gatos/ati_remote/ati_remote.c?annotate=1.9 > > The init packets get written at line 440. Mmm - looks you are right, but your init data seems to be different. 0x8001 vs 0x8003 and 0x8007. Interesting is the calculation of transfer_buffer_length in send_packet(), which would result in 4 for init1 and 8 for init2. I interpret this that the last byte from init1 doesn't get written and your packets don't fit into that sheme. The source looks very confusing to me, but maybe that because of my current localtime()... The Windows log could help as it's at least readable and familar. > >I don't know, but it could also depend on the controller you use. > >E.g. ehci currently doesn't support interrupt endpoints at all. > > Ah. Yes, this is with ehci coupled to ohci. Should I try to disable ehci > for now? Unless it's a high speed device ohci takes care for it anyway, but I doubt that a remote control device is high speed. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de