From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Ld53o-0002fx-8J for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:55:36 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E5059E01B4; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.248]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAB84E01B4 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:55:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so1127883rvb.46 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:55:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=qvi/1OuDuQfCV6z3F8QK0pLqL9SvTLoO6W4hAVJ1ik8=; b=KXWByR3EAmNddGCrq+xAfKw7R9o7we29OOoF+acBbCmNOQKboI2bOdUzy4aZ+YfziK frW6jy7SeYkz4p3hsuXTbXeMW7rqEhLR2jPJ8gBhDYSpyeAhuSyaLDaHSX/rboJyzOq3 92/s2l6f/ju2f3gwY92314HIV5WUIjElf8d/8= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=KyiTaIpZHSottt5QYBYN3ht50mfyUH2DOy8CrvTEViwBDXl/dYWuKEpq+NMje01N1l Je3AXHmk1xr8Qe+Yy86sQ1G8f2SLpjm5aQYm3yVWOOZtk3swE7FzNuSZMmdOwmO3Kv1u abVvafFlnNIssjw0AZzofAgD8m7Ydo2J9f+2I= Received: by 10.142.239.11 with SMTP id m11mr1344375wfh.137.1235750132350; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:55:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?4.230.105.124? (dialup-4.230.105.124.Dial1.Houston1.Level3.net [4.230.105.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 24sm7212029wfc.37.2009.02.27.07.55.29 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 27 Feb 2009 07:55:31 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49A80CEE.5000200@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:55:26 -0600 From: Dale User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.1.19) Gecko/20081227 SeaMonkey/1.1.14 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller? References: <49bf44f10902261934l1d33ff17nd64fbfaff4d5b1a3@mail.gmail.com> <49A763C4.5010201@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902262142u68d0a789g336e23849987494d@mail.gmail.com> <49A78BA0.8030602@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902270737s7cd41da0t734fdc00d5c67a73@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <49bf44f10902270737s7cd41da0t734fdc00d5c67a73@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: de21f799-962b-44b6-8ae4-911fabda1433 X-Archives-Hash: c93c5a0b1e2c2d9ab4b6101cc9df9bb8 Grant wrote: > > You seem to be right on here Dale. usbview showed my printer > connected to the 2.0 controller and a webcam connected to the 1.1 > controller, so I unplugged the printer and plugged the webcam into > it's slot and it still showed up under 1.1. So there doesn't appear > to be any slot/controller correlation. > > This is a problem for me though. My webcams can't both operate on the > 1.1 controller at the same time due to the bandwidth limitation of the > 1.1 controller. I need them both on 2.0 or one on each controller, > but they are always grabbed by the 1.1 controller. Even worse, I > disabled support for 1.1 in the kernel so only 2.0 was supported and > the webcams didn't show up at all. Could they be USB 1.1 only? > Shouldn't a 1.1 device operate on a 2.0 controller? > > - Grant > > > This is how I understand it. Any 2.0 device should work with the older 1.0 version, just slower. Backwards compatible. However, like with my camera, if the device is a version 1.0, it will only work in 1.0 mode. If you recently purchased this, you may want to exchange it and make sure you get a 2.0 version. That is if there is such a creature. The reason behind this is the chip inside the camera/webcam itself. The cable can cause this if it is not made for the new higher bandwidth or is crappy but if the chip in there is the old 1.0 version, it can't go any faster. Another idea, you may be able to get a card to expand your USB ports and see if that will help. Each card has its own chip as well. Put one device on the card and one on the mobo port. That way they are seen and controlled by separate chips. That should help with the bandwidth problem at least. Dale :-) :-)