From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262286AbULMUCS (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2004 15:02:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261332AbULMT77 (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:59:59 -0500 Received: from poros.telenet-ops.be ([195.130.132.44]:37345 "EHLO poros.telenet-ops.be") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262278AbULMTyy (ORCPT ); Mon, 13 Dec 2004 14:54:54 -0500 From: Jan De Luyck To: Alan Stern , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Linux-usb-users] [2.6.10-rc2] ehci_hcd causes oops after some use of usb harddisk Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2004 20:55:08 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.1 Cc: USB development list , USB users list References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200412132055.10273.lkml@kcore.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 23 November 2004 22:02, Alan Stern wrote: > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, Jan De Luyck wrote: > > On Tuesday 23 November 2004 20:39, Alan Stern wrote: > > > Try the patch below and see if it helps. > > > > > > Alan Stern > > > > > > > > > ===== drivers/usb/storage/transport.c 1.152 vs edited ===== > > > --- 1.152/drivers/usb/storage/transport.c 2004-11-14 19:41:07 -05:00 > > > +++ edited/drivers/usb/storage/transport.c 2004-11-23 14:37:40 -05:00 > > > @@ -987,7 +987,7 @@ > > > /* Genesys Logic interface chips need a 100us delay between the > > > * command phase and the data phase */ > > > if (us->pusb_dev->descriptor.idVendor == USB_VENDOR_ID_GENESYS) > > > - udelay(100); > > > + udelay(200); > > > > > > if (transfer_length) { > > > unsigned int pipe = srb->sc_data_direction == DMA_FROM_DEVICE ? > > > > Indeed, this solved my problems. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > Just out of curiosity, could you try using several different values in > that udelay() statement? Maybe 200 is larger than necessary. If > something like 110 would work just as well, then it would help improve the > I/O speed. Alan, Sorry for the late answer, I've been rather busy of late. Today I had the time to recompile and test the drive. I'm currently using the drive with a udelay of 110, and it works without any problems. The transfer speed is indeed higher than with the 200msec delay ;) Hope this helps, maybe this can now be integrated into the main kernel so people no longer have a problem with it :) If you need more information, feel free to ask. Jan -- I learned to play guitar just to get the girls, and anyone who says they didn't is just lyin'! -- Willie Nelson