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 1LdA7j-0008RX-TV for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:20:00 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A192CE0130; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:19:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com [209.85.146.182]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 657F5E0130 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:19:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id j4so643050wah.2 for ; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:19:56 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=NmvHECyUXObpNjVNNwi7o7nOT6q2kC665Ggik2DfrW4=; b=YAljWqByf0Io0iCgtQp1PlZZBipGFmtv9TQkUC3Pzo3f+D11vk36eZ3uejFYHgcR8L Konpmj+CuOWaztWM3IKFvlTHsL/nJuIEkFLDzZoBADQqYIkWVvq7kSldswBEuhP2fSut zDwK1rG30VBdw1RbxkGgeqxWZvVd3+ZbT3RMg= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=iWVYv7R5yVEkT0I9/1OOF/DLdU2NTu0OlL4aHUv2aa52cHQxR3o1owEQDjdiexjmj3 2D1+1AE/5Thnz5+1fMw/joGIid3ZFymHIuFrg1VK2ECTRkzXTQMa8Wm+0uaRn4zUnFvu kRDy8JpOpRVY/qTc70izBeXpRyq3HThCnXjik= 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 Received: by 10.114.73.6 with SMTP id v6mr1344102waa.48.1235769595958; Fri, 27 Feb 2009 13:19:55 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <49bf44f10902271221k30134a9fg907bc477dfc3683@mail.gmail.com> References: <49bf44f10902261934l1d33ff17nd64fbfaff4d5b1a3@mail.gmail.com> <49A763C4.5010201@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902262142u68d0a789g336e23849987494d@mail.gmail.com> <49A78BA0.8030602@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902270737s7cd41da0t734fdc00d5c67a73@mail.gmail.com> <49A80CEE.5000200@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902270900q2ec748f6p489fc1839bf32f7d@mail.gmail.com> <49A82351.8090009@gmail.com> <49bf44f10902271221k30134a9fg907bc477dfc3683@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 16:19:55 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Which USB device on which controller? From: Joshua Murphy To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: fac48f04-8044-4369-b1b8-bfb0e9f21c2c X-Archives-Hash: ada167474b10a566d36b2337a2405e0a On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:21 PM, 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. =C2=A0Does the device say it's >>> "high speed" USB? =C2=A0"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. =C2=A0I'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. =C2=A0It 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? =C2=A0I 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. =C2=A0I g= et > 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. --=20 Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy