[U-Boot] RFC [PATCH 3/5] usb: Some EHCI chipsets are slow to respond.

[Prafulla Wadaskar]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason [mailto:u-boot at lakedaemon.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2011 7:07 AM
> To: Prafulla Wadaskar
> Cc: clint at debian.org; wd at denx.de; u-boot at lists.denx.de; Prabhanjan
> Sarnaik; Ashish Karkare; Siddarth Gore; bdale at gag.com
> Subject: Re: RFC [PATCH 3/5] usb: Some EHCI chipsets are slow to
> respond.
> 
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:23:50AM -0700, Prafulla Wadaskar wrote:
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jason Cooper [mailto:u-boot at lakedaemon.net]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:49 AM
> > > To: clint at debian.org; wd at denx.de; Prafulla Wadaskar
> > > Cc: u-boot at lists.denx.de; Prabhanjan Sarnaik; Ashish Karkare;
> Siddarth
> > > Gore; bdale at gag.com; Jason Cooper
> > > Subject: RFC [PATCH 3/5] usb: Some EHCI chipsets are slow to
> respond.
> > >
> > > This fixes 'EHCI timed out on TD...' on the dreamplug board.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jason Cooper <u-boot at lakedaemon.net>
> > > ---
> > >  include/usb.h |    2 +-
> > >  1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/include/usb.h b/include/usb.h
> > > index 53603a5..168e2b2 100644
> > > --- a/include/usb.h
> > > +++ b/include/usb.h
> > > @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@
> > >   * This is the timeout to allow for submitting an urb in ms. We
> allow
> > > more
> > >   * time for a BULK device to react - some are slow.
> > >   */
> > > -#define USB_TIMEOUT_MS(pipe) (usb_pipebulk(pipe) ? 5000 : 100)
> > > +#define USB_TIMEOUT_MS(pipe) (usb_pipebulk(pipe) ? 5000 : 500)
> >
> > This looks global change, how will it affect other implementations?
> 
> I dunno, that's why it's RFC. ;-)  It's a timeout, so it *shouldn't*
> adversely affect other systems with well behaved usb chipsets.  And
> boards will ill-tempered usb chipsets should work better.  But I'm
> not familiar enough with the usb code to say that definitively.
> 
> I could try doing a dreamplug-specific hack to make it work, but if
> there's no adverse affect to other systems, then this is a cleaner
> approach.

You can post this standalone patch, remove from this patch series since it will be acked/applied by other custodian.

Regards..
Prafulla . .