[gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

My system seems to have 2 USB controllers, one 1.1 controller (OHCI)
and one 2.0 controller (EHCI):

00:02.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
a3) (prog-if 10 [OHCI])
	Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
	Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 21
	Memory at dfe7f000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
	Capabilities: [44] Power Management version 2
	Kernel driver in use: ohci_hcd

00:02.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
a3) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
	Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
	Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 22
	Memory at dfe7ec00 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
	Capabilities: [44] Debug port: BAR=1 offset=0098
	Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2
	Kernel driver in use: ehci_hcd

I have 2 Philips USB webcams attached to this system and controlled by
media-video/motion.  One of the webcams is not functioning, and I'm
supposed to make sure I don't have both of them attached to the USB
1.1 controller.  How can I do that?  I have:

# lsusb
Bus 001 Device 003: ID 04f9:002a Brother Industries, Ltd
Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002
Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0471:0329 Philips
Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0471:0329 Philips
Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001

Is there any way to find out?

- Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Dale]

Grant wrote:
> My system seems to have 2 USB controllers, one 1.1 controller (OHCI)
> and one 2.0 controller (EHCI):
>
> 00:02.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
> a3) (prog-if 10 [OHCI])
> 	Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
> 	Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 21
> 	Memory at dfe7f000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
> 	Capabilities: [44] Power Management version 2
> 	Kernel driver in use: ohci_hcd
>
> 00:02.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
> a3) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
> 	Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
> 	Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 22
> 	Memory at dfe7ec00 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
> 	Capabilities: [44] Debug port: BAR=1 offset=0098
> 	Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2
> 	Kernel driver in use: ehci_hcd
>
> I have 2 Philips USB webcams attached to this system and controlled by
> media-video/motion.  One of the webcams is not functioning, and I'm
> supposed to make sure I don't have both of them attached to the USB
> 1.1 controller.  How can I do that?  I have:
>
> # lsusb
> Bus 001 Device 003: ID 04f9:002a Brother Industries, Ltd
> Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002
> Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0471:0329 Philips
> Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0471:0329 Philips
> Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001
>
> Is there any way to find out?
>
> - Grant
>
>
>   


I !think! mine has that too.  This is the usb part of my config:

root@smoker / # cat /usr/src/linux/.config | grep USB | grep =y
CONFIG_USB_HID=y
CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT=y
CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_HCD=y
CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_OHCI=y
CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_EHCI=y
CONFIG_USB=y
CONFIG_USB_DEVICEFS=y
CONFIG_USB_OHCI_HCD=y
CONFIG_USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN=y
CONFIG_USB_ACM=y
CONFIG_USB_PRINTER=y
CONFIG_USB_STORAGE=y
root@smoker / #   

With mine, it tries 2.0 first then goes to the first version.  My
printer is 2.0 but my camera is the old version, or maybe it is the
other way around.  I got a memory stick that connects 2.0 to.  Anyway,
that works here and it may work for you.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

>> My system seems to have 2 USB controllers, one 1.1 controller (OHCI)
>> and one 2.0 controller (EHCI):
>>
>> 00:02.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
>> a3) (prog-if 10 [OHCI])
>>       Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
>>       Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 21
>>       Memory at dfe7f000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
>>       Capabilities: [44] Power Management version 2
>>       Kernel driver in use: ohci_hcd
>>
>> 00:02.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
>> a3) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
>>       Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
>>       Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 22
>>       Memory at dfe7ec00 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
>>       Capabilities: [44] Debug port: BAR=1 offset=0098
>>       Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2
>>       Kernel driver in use: ehci_hcd
>>
>> I have 2 Philips USB webcams attached to this system and controlled by
>> media-video/motion.  One of the webcams is not functioning, and I'm
>> supposed to make sure I don't have both of them attached to the USB
>> 1.1 controller.  How can I do that?  I have:
>>
>> # lsusb
>> Bus 001 Device 003: ID 04f9:002a Brother Industries, Ltd
>> Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002
>> Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0471:0329 Philips
>> Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0471:0329 Philips
>> Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001
>>
>> Is there any way to find out?
>>
>> - Grant
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I !think! mine has that too.  This is the usb part of my config:
>
> root@smoker / # cat /usr/src/linux/.config | grep USB | grep =y
> CONFIG_USB_HID=y
> CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT=y
> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_HCD=y
> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_OHCI=y
> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_EHCI=y
> CONFIG_USB=y
> CONFIG_USB_DEVICEFS=y
> CONFIG_USB_OHCI_HCD=y
> CONFIG_USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN=y
> CONFIG_USB_ACM=y
> CONFIG_USB_PRINTER=y
> CONFIG_USB_STORAGE=y
> root@smoker / #
>
> With mine, it tries 2.0 first then goes to the first version.  My
> printer is 2.0 but my camera is the old version, or maybe it is the
> other way around.  I got a memory stick that connects 2.0 to.  Anyway,
> that works here and it may work for you.
>
> Dale

So it doesn't matter which slots the webcams are plugged into?

- Grant

[gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-27, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:

> So it doesn't matter which slots the webcams are plugged into?

Yes, it does.  Each usb jack is connected to just one of the 
controllers.  If you watch the log messages when you plug in a
device, you can tell which controller it's connected to and
whether it's a high-speed device or not.

The lshw command will provide even more details about connected
devices.

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Dale]

Grant wrote:
>>> My system seems to have 2 USB controllers, one 1.1 controller (OHCI)
>>> and one 2.0 controller (EHCI):
>>>
>>> 00:02.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
>>> a3) (prog-if 10 [OHCI])
>>>       Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
>>>       Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 21
>>>       Memory at dfe7f000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
>>>       Capabilities: [44] Power Management version 2
>>>       Kernel driver in use: ohci_hcd
>>>
>>> 00:02.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
>>> a3) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
>>>       Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
>>>       Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 22
>>>       Memory at dfe7ec00 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
>>>       Capabilities: [44] Debug port: BAR=1 offset=0098
>>>       Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2
>>>       Kernel driver in use: ehci_hcd
>>>
>>> I have 2 Philips USB webcams attached to this system and controlled by
>>> media-video/motion.  One of the webcams is not functioning, and I'm
>>> supposed to make sure I don't have both of them attached to the USB
>>> 1.1 controller.  How can I do that?  I have:
>>>
>>> # lsusb
>>> Bus 001 Device 003: ID 04f9:002a Brother Industries, Ltd
>>> Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002
>>> Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0471:0329 Philips
>>> Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0471:0329 Philips
>>> Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001
>>>
>>> Is there any way to find out?
>>>
>>> - Grant
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> I !think! mine has that too.  This is the usb part of my config:
>>
>> root@smoker / # cat /usr/src/linux/.config | grep USB | grep =y
>> CONFIG_USB_HID=y
>> CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT=y
>> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_HCD=y
>> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_OHCI=y
>> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_EHCI=y
>> CONFIG_USB=y
>> CONFIG_USB_DEVICEFS=y
>> CONFIG_USB_OHCI_HCD=y
>> CONFIG_USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN=y
>> CONFIG_USB_ACM=y
>> CONFIG_USB_PRINTER=y
>> CONFIG_USB_STORAGE=y
>> root@smoker / #
>>
>> With mine, it tries 2.0 first then goes to the first version.  My
>> printer is 2.0 but my camera is the old version, or maybe it is the
>> other way around.  I got a memory stick that connects 2.0 to.  Anyway,
>> that works here and it may work for you.
>>
>> Dale
>>     
>
> So it doesn't matter which slots the webcams are plugged into?
>
> - Grant
>
>
>   

I'm not 100% sure of this but I think it will try to connect sort of
like a IDE drive or even a old dial-up modem does.  It just tries to use
the fastest speed it can get a stable connect at.  It appears to try the
new faster version first but if that doesn't work it switches to the
slower speed and tries that.  Because of my hardware, I have to use both
on mine since some can only use the slow speed and some can use the high
speed.

As far as the actual connector itself, I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter
at all.  It's one chip that controls it all anyway.  Just like the PCI
bus, it has one chip and that's it.  I know I have switched my printer
and camera around several times and it works the same no matter how I
connect it.

Now if you have the new version USB with everything hardware wise, you
may be able to disable the old version so that it has no option but to
use the new fast one.  That way you can get the fast speed or a error
message that it isn't working.  Keep in mind tho, if you have a junky
cable, it will limit the speed a LOT.  My printer would not use the new
fast version with a older cable.  It does with the new cable tho.  My
camera just plain don't work with the new version no matter what.  You
may want to get a good quality cable to test with too.

Someone correct me if I am off base here.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Mark Knecht]

On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:34 PM, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> I have 2 Philips USB webcams attached to this system and controlled by
> media-video/motion.  One of the webcams is not functioning, and I'm
> supposed to make sure I don't have both of them attached to the USB
> 1.1 controller.  How can I do that?  I have:
>
> # lsusb
> Bus 001 Device 003: ID 04f9:002a Brother Industries, Ltd
> Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002
> Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0471:0329 Philips
> Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0471:0329 Philips
> Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001
>
> Is there any way to find out?

You might want to try usbview. It gives a graphical display of the USB
controllers and what devices are hooked to each controller. If you
click on any of the names in the left panel, controller or device, it
gives you the capabilities of the device. It's very small and builds
fast.

mark@lightning ~ $ eix usbview
[I] app-admin/usbview
     Available versions:  1.0-r3
     Installed versions:  1.0-r3(02:30:52 PM 01/31/2009)
     Homepage:            http://www.kroah.com/linux-usb/
     Description:         Display the topology of devices on the USB bus

mark@lightning ~ $

Hope that helps.

- Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

>>>> My system seems to have 2 USB controllers, one 1.1 controller (OHCI)
>>>> and one 2.0 controller (EHCI):
>>>>
>>>> 00:02.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
>>>> a3) (prog-if 10 [OHCI])
>>>>       Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
>>>>       Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 21
>>>>       Memory at dfe7f000 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=4K]
>>>>       Capabilities: [44] Power Management version 2
>>>>       Kernel driver in use: ohci_hcd
>>>>
>>>> 00:02.1 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP61 USB Controller (rev
>>>> a3) (prog-if 20 [EHCI])
>>>>       Subsystem: Micro-Star International Co., Ltd. Device 7309
>>>>       Flags: bus master, 66MHz, fast devsel, latency 0, IRQ 22
>>>>       Memory at dfe7ec00 (32-bit, non-prefetchable) [size=256]
>>>>       Capabilities: [44] Debug port: BAR=1 offset=0098
>>>>       Capabilities: [80] Power Management version 2
>>>>       Kernel driver in use: ehci_hcd
>>>>
>>>> I have 2 Philips USB webcams attached to this system and controlled by
>>>> media-video/motion.  One of the webcams is not functioning, and I'm
>>>> supposed to make sure I don't have both of them attached to the USB
>>>> 1.1 controller.  How can I do that?  I have:
>>>>
>>>> # lsusb
>>>> Bus 001 Device 003: ID 04f9:002a Brother Industries, Ltd
>>>> Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002
>>>> Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0471:0329 Philips
>>>> Bus 002 Device 002: ID 0471:0329 Philips
>>>> Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001
>>>>
>>>> Is there any way to find out?
>>>>
>>>> - Grant
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I !think! mine has that too.  This is the usb part of my config:
>>>
>>> root@smoker / # cat /usr/src/linux/.config | grep USB | grep =y
>>> CONFIG_USB_HID=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_SUPPORT=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_HCD=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_OHCI=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_ARCH_HAS_EHCI=y
>>> CONFIG_USB=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_DEVICEFS=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_OHCI_HCD=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_OHCI_LITTLE_ENDIAN=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_ACM=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_PRINTER=y
>>> CONFIG_USB_STORAGE=y
>>> root@smoker / #
>>>
>>> With mine, it tries 2.0 first then goes to the first version.  My
>>> printer is 2.0 but my camera is the old version, or maybe it is the
>>> other way around.  I got a memory stick that connects 2.0 to.  Anyway,
>>> that works here and it may work for you.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>>
>>
>> So it doesn't matter which slots the webcams are plugged into?
>>
>> - Grant
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm not 100% sure of this but I think it will try to connect sort of
> like a IDE drive or even a old dial-up modem does.  It just tries to use
> the fastest speed it can get a stable connect at.  It appears to try the
> new faster version first but if that doesn't work it switches to the
> slower speed and tries that.  Because of my hardware, I have to use both
> on mine since some can only use the slow speed and some can use the high
> speed.
>
> As far as the actual connector itself, I'm pretty sure it doesn't matter
> at all.  It's one chip that controls it all anyway.  Just like the PCI
> bus, it has one chip and that's it.  I know I have switched my printer
> and camera around several times and it works the same no matter how I
> connect it.
>
> Now if you have the new version USB with everything hardware wise, you
> may be able to disable the old version so that it has no option but to
> use the new fast one.  That way you can get the fast speed or a error
> message that it isn't working.  Keep in mind tho, if you have a junky
> cable, it will limit the speed a LOT.  My printer would not use the new
> fast version with a older cable.  It does with the new cable tho.  My
> camera just plain don't work with the new version no matter what.  You
> may want to get a good quality cable to test with too.
>
> Someone correct me if I am off base here.
>
> Dale

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Friday 27 February 2009 17:37:22 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.

That probably means the controller is running in 1.1 mode
2.0 controllers can do both

To find out what the hardware is, look for E|U|OHCI and decode that

-- 
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Dale]

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

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

>> 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.
>
> That probably means the controller is running in 1.1 mode
> 2.0 controllers can do both
>
> To find out what the hardware is, look for E|U|OHCI and decode that

According to lspci -v, I have one EHCI (2.0) and one OHCI (1.1)
controller.  usbview has output like this:

OHCI
- Philips
- Philips
EHCI
- Brother

If I unplug the Brother printer and plug a Philips webcam into the
same slot the Brother was plugged into, usbview shows this:

OHCI
- Philips
- Philips
EHCI

So it seems like the slots do not correlate to particular controllers.

- Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

>> 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

I'm looking at the box of one of the webcams and it says "USB 2.0
compatible".  It's not a cable problem because the cable is built
right into the webcam.  I'm not trying to get the webcam to go faster
back and forth to the controller, I just need to make sure I don't
have both webcams on the same OHCI (1.1) USB controller.  I would
think buying a USB expansion card would work, but I have an EHCI (2.0)
controller on this system and a second OHCI (1.1) controller.

Does anyone have any idea on this.  It really doesn't make sense.

- Grant

[gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-27, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm looking at the box of one of the webcams and it says "USB 2.0
> compatible".

A USB 1.1 device _is_ "USB 2.0 compatible" because a USB 2.0
will slow down and run at 1.1 speed.  Does the device say it's
"high speed" USB?  "USB 2.0 compatible" generally means it's a
USB 1.1 device.

> It's not a cable problem because the cable is built right into
> the webcam.  I'm not trying to get the webcam to go faster
> back and forth to the controller, I just need to make sure I
> don't have both webcams on the same OHCI (1.1) USB controller.
> I would think buying a USB expansion card would work, but I
> have an EHCI (2.0) controller on this system and a second OHCI
> (1.1) controller.
>
> Does anyone have any idea on this.  It really doesn't make sense.

Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.

-- 
Grant Edwards                   grante             Yow! Edwin Meese made me
                                  at               wear CORDOVANS!!
                               visi.com            

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Dale]

Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2009-02-27, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> I'm looking at the box of one of the webcams and it says "USB 2.0
>> compatible".
>>     
>
> A USB 1.1 device _is_ "USB 2.0 compatible" because a USB 2.0
> will slow down and run at 1.1 speed.  Does the device say it's
> "high speed" USB?  "USB 2.0 compatible" generally means it's a
> USB 1.1 device.
>
>   
>> It's not a cable problem because the cable is built right into
>> the webcam.  I'm not trying to get the webcam to go faster
>> back and forth to the controller, I just need to make sure I
>> don't have both webcams on the same OHCI (1.1) USB controller.
>> I would think buying a USB expansion card would work, but I
>> have an EHCI (2.0) controller on this system and a second OHCI
>> (1.1) controller.
>>
>> Does anyone have any idea on this.  It really doesn't make sense.
>>     
>
> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>
>   

Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

>>> I'm looking at the box of one of the webcams and it says "USB 2.0
>>> compatible".
>>>
>>
>> A USB 1.1 device _is_ "USB 2.0 compatible" because a USB 2.0
>> will slow down and run at 1.1 speed.  Does the device say it's
>> "high speed" USB?  "USB 2.0 compatible" generally means it's a
>> USB 1.1 device.
>>
>>
>>> It's not a cable problem because the cable is built right into
>>> the webcam.  I'm not trying to get the webcam to go faster
>>> back and forth to the controller, I just need to make sure I
>>> don't have both webcams on the same OHCI (1.1) USB controller.
>>> I would think buying a USB expansion card would work, but I
>>> have an EHCI (2.0) controller on this system and a second OHCI
>>> (1.1) controller.
>>>
>>> Does anyone have any idea on this.  It really doesn't make sense.
>>>
>>
>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>>
>>
>
> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too.
>
> Dale

But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.  I get
the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the line here.
Could someone straighten me out?

- Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Joshua Murphy]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:21 PM, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I'm looking at the box of one of the webcams and it says "USB 2.0
>>>> compatible".
>>>>
>>>
>>> A USB 1.1 device _is_ "USB 2.0 compatible" because a USB 2.0
>>> will slow down and run at 1.1 speed.  Does the device say it's
>>> "high speed" USB?  "USB 2.0 compatible" generally means it's a
>>> USB 1.1 device.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It's not a cable problem because the cable is built right into
>>>> the webcam.  I'm not trying to get the webcam to go faster
>>>> back and forth to the controller, I just need to make sure I
>>>> don't have both webcams on the same OHCI (1.1) USB controller.
>>>> I would think buying a USB expansion card would work, but I
>>>> have an EHCI (2.0) controller on this system and a second OHCI
>>>> (1.1) controller.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any idea on this.  It really doesn't make sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too.
>>
>> Dale
>
> But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.  I get
> the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the line here.
> Could someone straighten me out?
>
> - Grant

The controller itself has the full bandwidth of the 2.0 spec, it's
just only able to allocate the bandwidth of the 1.0/1.1 spec to each
of the cameras because they're being recognized as 1.1 capable only.
The controller, though, I'm pretty sure is able to allocate more than
enough overall bandwidth to the pair. Based on your original remarks
that "one of them isn't functioning", I worry more that there's a
problem with the driver for the camera itself that somehow breaks with
two of the same camera present, broken udev rule somewhere that's not
creating the device for the second camera, or... *something* more
along those lines, rather than an issue with the on-chip
implementation of your usb controller.

-- 
Poison [BLX]
Joshua M. Murphy

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Dale]

Grant wrote:
>>>> I'm looking at the box of one of the webcams and it says "USB 2.0
>>>> compatible".
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> A USB 1.1 device _is_ "USB 2.0 compatible" because a USB 2.0
>>> will slow down and run at 1.1 speed.  Does the device say it's
>>> "high speed" USB?  "USB 2.0 compatible" generally means it's a
>>> USB 1.1 device.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>>> It's not a cable problem because the cable is built right into
>>>> the webcam.  I'm not trying to get the webcam to go faster
>>>> back and forth to the controller, I just need to make sure I
>>>> don't have both webcams on the same OHCI (1.1) USB controller.
>>>> I would think buying a USB expansion card would work, but I
>>>> have an EHCI (2.0) controller on this system and a second OHCI
>>>> (1.1) controller.
>>>>
>>>> Does anyone have any idea on this.  It really doesn't make sense.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too.
>>
>> Dale
>>     
>
> But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.  I get
> the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the line here.
> Could someone straighten me out?
>
> - Grant
>
>
>   

If the camera is using USB version 1.0, or the slow connection, it won't
ever work as a 2.0.  It is just not capable of that.  It would be like
me wanting my old dial-up modem to connect to my ISP at 256K/s.  It
can't do that because it was not built to do that or has the hardware to
do it either.  Not to mention that my ISP would not be happy either.

I suspect that sort of like my IDE bus, when I have a old drive on the
same cable as a fast one, it is slower because of all the negotiating
that goes on between the different devices.  I may be wrong but I don't
think you are going to be able to get two cameras to work unless they
are both USB 2.0 or on a separate chip such as a expansion card. 

The camera is your limiting factor from what I understand. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Mark Knecht]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:21 PM, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>
> But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.  I get
> the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the line here.
> Could someone straighten me out?
>
> - Grant

But if your 1.1 webcam slows the bus down to 12Mb/S and then uses that
much bandwidth (or a large portion of it) there wouldn't be any time
left for the controller to go back to 2.0 speeds anyway.

Plan on 12Mb/S max for all devices in total if you plug the device
into the 2.0 bus.

- Mark

[gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant Edwards]

On 2009-02-27, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>>
>> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too.
>>
>> Dale
>
> But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.

The 2.0 controller doesn't _have_ increased bandwith if it's
talking to 1.1 devices.  In that case, the 2.0 controller is
transferring data at the same speed as a 1.1 controller.

> I get the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the
> line here. Could someone straighten me out?

A Corvette going 3MPH will get to the finish line at exactly
the same time as a 4-year-old kid on a tricycle going 3MPH.  It
doesn't matter what the controller is capable of -- it matters
what speed it's actually talking.

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

>>>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>>>
>>> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too.
>>>
>>> Dale
>>
>> But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
>> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
>> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.
>
> The 2.0 controller doesn't _have_ increased bandwith if it's
> talking to 1.1 devices.  In that case, the 2.0 controller is
> transferring data at the same speed as a 1.1 controller.

I thought the total bandwidth available for a controller was different
than the bandwidth at which it communicates with one device.  You're
saying any 1.1 device that uses 12 mbit/s will 100% monopolize a 2.0
controller so no other devices can function?

Taking a different approach, since I have 2 USB controllers (EHCIx1,
OHCIx1) why can't I operate one webcam on one controller and one
webcam on the other controller so they can both function?

- Grant

>> I get the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the
>> line here. Could someone straighten me out?
>
> A Corvette going 3MPH will get to the finish line at exactly
> the same time as a 4-year-old kid on a tricycle going 3MPH.  It
> doesn't matter what the controller is capable of -- it matters
> what speed it's actually talking.
>
> --
> Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>>>>
>>>> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too.
>>>>
>>>> Dale
>>>
>>> But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
>>> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
>>> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.
>>
>> The 2.0 controller doesn't _have_ increased bandwith if it's
>> talking to 1.1 devices.  In that case, the 2.0 controller is
>> transferring data at the same speed as a 1.1 controller.
>
> I thought the total bandwidth available for a controller was different
> than the bandwidth at which it communicates with one device.  You're
> saying any 1.1 device that uses 12 mbit/s will 100% monopolize a 2.0
> controller so no other devices can function?
>

Yes. USB is not like 1394/Firewire. Firewire will increase and
decrease bandwidth as different devices take control of the bus. There
is negotiation between devices and the device that owns the bus
controls how the bus is used.

With USB a 1.1 device on the bus causes the 2.0 controller to operate
at 1.1 speed so there is only 12Mb/S on that bus once you plug the 1.1
web cam in.

> Taking a different approach, since I have 2 USB controllers (EHCIx1,
> OHCIx1) why can't I operate one webcam on one controller and one
> webcam on the other controller so they can both function?
>

If the hardware is working correctly, if the drivers are independent,
and IF IF IF the two physical ports you chose are actually going to
completely different controllers then you can. I do this. This sort of
thing becomes an issue with USB when you make a mistake an plug an old
USB mouse or keyboard into the wrong physical port and bring your 2.0
bus speed down to 1.1 bandwidth.

Over and out,
Mark

> - Grant
>
>>> I get the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the
>>> line here. Could someone straighten me out?
>>
>> A Corvette going 3MPH will get to the finish line at exactly
>> the same time as a 4-year-old kid on a tricycle going 3MPH.  It
>> doesn't matter what the controller is capable of -- it matters
>> what speed it's actually talking.
>>
>> --
>> Grant
>
>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:54:43 -0800, Grant wrote:

> Taking a different approach, since I have 2 USB controllers (EHCIx1,
> OHCIx1) why can't I operate one webcam on one controller and one
> webcam on the other controller so they can both function?

Because they're 1.1 devices and you have only one 1.1 controller. If you
need two 1.1 devices to operate at full speed, you need two separate
controllers, USB PCI cards are cheap.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Use Colgate toothpaste or end up with teeth like a Ferengi.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

>>>>>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>>> But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
>>>> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
>>>> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.
>>>
>>> The 2.0 controller doesn't _have_ increased bandwith if it's
>>> talking to 1.1 devices.  In that case, the 2.0 controller is
>>> transferring data at the same speed as a 1.1 controller.
>>
>> I thought the total bandwidth available for a controller was different
>> than the bandwidth at which it communicates with one device.  You're
>> saying any 1.1 device that uses 12 mbit/s will 100% monopolize a 2.0
>> controller so no other devices can function?
>>
>
> Yes. USB is not like 1394/Firewire. Firewire will increase and
> decrease bandwidth as different devices take control of the bus. There
> is negotiation between devices and the device that owns the bus
> controls how the bus is used.
>
> With USB a 1.1 device on the bus causes the 2.0 controller to operate
> at 1.1 speed so there is only 12Mb/S on that bus once you plug the 1.1
> web cam in.
>
>> Taking a different approach, since I have 2 USB controllers (EHCIx1,
>> OHCIx1) why can't I operate one webcam on one controller and one
>> webcam on the other controller so they can both function?
>>
>
> If the hardware is working correctly, if the drivers are independent,
> and IF IF IF the two physical ports you chose are actually going to
> completely different controllers then you can. I do this. This sort of
> thing becomes an issue with USB when you make a mistake an plug an old
> USB mouse or keyboard into the wrong physical port and bring your 2.0
> bus speed down to 1.1 bandwidth.
>
> Over and out,
> Mark

Thanks everyone.  Sounds like I need another USB controller or 2.0 webcams.

- Grant


>> - Grant
>>
>>>> I get the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the
>>>> line here. Could someone straighten me out?
>>>
>>> A Corvette going 3MPH will get to the finish line at exactly
>>> the same time as a 4-year-old kid on a tricycle going 3MPH.  It
>>> doesn't matter what the controller is capable of -- it matters
>>> what speed it's actually talking.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller?

[Grant]

>>>>>> Sounds like it's a 1.1 device to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, that's what it sounds like to me too.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dale
>>>>
>>>> But that's OK isn't it?  I don't need 2.0 speeds between each webcam
>>>> and the controller, I just need the increased overall bandwidth of a
>>>> 2.0 controller so one of the 1.1 webcams doesn't use all of it.
>>>
>>> The 2.0 controller doesn't _have_ increased bandwith if it's
>>> talking to 1.1 devices.  In that case, the 2.0 controller is
>>> transferring data at the same speed as a 1.1 controller.
>>
>> I thought the total bandwidth available for a controller was different
>> than the bandwidth at which it communicates with one device.  You're
>> saying any 1.1 device that uses 12 mbit/s will 100% monopolize a 2.0
>> controller so no other devices can function?
>>
>
> Yes. USB is not like 1394/Firewire. Firewire will increase and
> decrease bandwidth as different devices take control of the bus. There
> is negotiation between devices and the device that owns the bus
> controls how the bus is used.
>
> With USB a 1.1 device on the bus causes the 2.0 controller to operate
> at 1.1 speed so there is only 12Mb/S on that bus once you plug the 1.1
> web cam in.
>
>> Taking a different approach, since I have 2 USB controllers (EHCIx1,
>> OHCIx1) why can't I operate one webcam on one controller and one
>> webcam on the other controller so they can both function?
>>
>
> If the hardware is working correctly, if the drivers are independent,
> and IF IF IF the two physical ports you chose are actually going to
> completely different controllers then you can. I do this. This sort of
> thing becomes an issue with USB when you make a mistake an plug an old
> USB mouse or keyboard into the wrong physical port and bring your 2.0
> bus speed down to 1.1 bandwidth.

That's a lot of IFs.  This USB PCI card looks good because it claims:

"Five ports in three independent host controller design, two OHCI and one EHCI"
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16815104202

Are you saying I can't count on this card behaving as 3 separate USB
controllers?

- Grant


> Over and out,
> Mark
>
>> - Grant
>>
>>>> I get the feeling I have a misconception somewhere along the
>>>> line here. Could someone straighten me out?
>>>
>>> A Corvette going 3MPH will get to the finish line at exactly
>>> the same time as a 4-year-old kid on a tricycle going 3MPH.  It
>>> doesn't matter what the controller is capable of -- it matters
>>> what speed it's actually talking.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Grant