From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262175AbUEFNKu (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 09:10:50 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262170AbUEFNKu (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 09:10:50 -0400 Received: from ns.schottelius.org ([213.146.113.242]:25494 "HELO ns.schottelius.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262109AbUEFNKs (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 May 2004 09:10:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 May 2004 15:10:55 +0200 From: Nico Schottelius To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: USB OHCI selected, EHCI should be used Message-ID: <20040506131055.GF1279@schottelius.org> References: <20040506122112.GE1279@schottelius.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040506122112.GE1279@schottelius.org> X-Linux-Info: http://linux.schottelius.org/ X-Operating-System: Linux bruehe 2.6.3 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hello! When I have loaded only ehci, my usb 2.0 devices are attached as usb 2.0. If I have loaded ohci and ehci, my usb 2.0 devices are handled by ohci. My question: Why? Shouldn't ohci be the fallback and ehci default? I have the following usb controllers: 0000:00:0a.0 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 50) 0000:00:0a.1 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. VT82xxxxx UHCI USB 1.1 Controller (rev 50) 0000:00:0a.2 USB Controller: VIA Technologies, Inc. USB 2.0 (rev 51) 0000:00:14.0 USB Controller: ALi Corporation USB 1.1 Controller (rev 03) One is handled by uhci (for the internal wlan card), two are handled by ohci (for external 1.1 devices) and one is handled by ehci (should be for external 2.0 devices). Any hint appreciated! Nico please cc me..