Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 20:46:29 +0200 From: Michael Nottebrock <michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> To: Mike Tancsa <mike@sentex.net> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: EHCI considered harmful? Message-ID: <200410292046.34494.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <6.1.2.0.0.20041029141407.06fc82d8@64.7.153.2> References: <20041029075930.GG701@marvin.riggiland.au> <200410292002.52978.michaelnottebrock@gmx.net> <6.1.2.0.0.20041029141407.06fc82d8@64.7.153.2>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--nextPart1199435.qTAcpY7gut Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Friday, 29. October 2004 20:29, Mike Tancsa wrote: > I think EHCI would only make it worse.=20 Yes. > The same 1.1 bugs would be there=20 > that you mention, and then the ones added by EHCI. i.e. it doesnt take a= ny > 1.1 bugs away, just adds more. Exactly. And I still say it should go in. And you should file a PR about yo= ur=20 ehci issues (oh, yeah, and we need USB maintainers to take them, too :(). =2D-=20 ,_, | Michael Nottebrock | lofi@freebsd.org (/^ ^\) | FreeBSD - The Power to Serve | http://www.freebsd.org \u/ | K Desktop Environment on FreeBSD | http://freebsd.kde.org --nextPart1199435.qTAcpY7gut Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.9.11 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQBBgpAKXhc68WspdLARArwzAJwLxha1QrQzXViFMmEgA6Cde4iFaQCfQezb BvB1n4DWM3a6IWZapQRVGaE= =P1DH -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1199435.qTAcpY7gut--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200410292046.34494.michaelnottebrock>