From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: hzpeterchen@gmail.com (Peter Chen) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:31:15 +0800 Subject: [PATCH v3 1/1] USB: core: let USB device know device node In-Reply-To: <1825868.A6VKDYvWaj@wuerfel> References: <2404899.20LhULZo7N@wuerfel> <1825868.A6VKDYvWaj@wuerfel> Message-ID: <20160125093114.GA13749@shlinux2> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Jan 25, 2016 at 09:50:53AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Monday 25 January 2016 11:57:37 Peter Chen wrote: > > >> > > > >> > hub at 3 { /* same external hub, highspeed mode */ > > >> > compatible = "usb2109,0812.591", > > >> > "usb2109,0812", > > >> > "usb2109,class9.0.1", > > >> > "usb2109,class9.0", > > >> > "usb2109,class9"; > > >> > > > >> > #address-cells = <1>; > > >> > #size-cells = <0>; > > >> > reg = >; > > >> > > > >> > > >> Why "reg" is 3 here? > > > > > > My mistake. It should be hub at 1 and reg=<1>; > > > > > > I accidentally confused the port number and the device number. > > > > I think it should be hub at 2 and reg=<0x2>. > > According to Alan, we should use xHCI numbering scheme when > > describing the ports of an xHCI root hub. > > For a single-port root hub, that would be right. My PC has > two ports, so the first port has reg=<0x1> for SS and > reg=<0x3> for HS. > Yes, you are right. Alan, do you know which physical number is larger for the same port, HS or SS port? Is it spec defined or vendor defined? I haven't found related information at xHCI spec. -- Best Regards, Peter Chen