1/1 
|
USB list dead?
by Unknown on Dec 20, 2004 |
Not available! | ||
|
Hi, everybody.
I sent a question some time ago to this list (see below). Now I'm
resending it and wondering if this list is dead or people just too
busy to answer.
If this doesn't work, I'll send another letter in a "Hello, I'm a
student, send results" fasion.
Regards,
Igor
From: Igor Mohorigor.mohor@g...>
Date: Wed Dec 1 14:18:48 CET 2004
Subject: [usb] timeout values
Hi.
Are values used for "RX timeout" OK? The Opencores USB core uses 400
ns for HS and and 622 ns for FS. I believe the value should be 816 bit
times for
HS (1.7 us) and 16-18 bit times for FS (1.33 us - 1.5 us).
Am I wrong or right?
Best regards,
Igor
|
|||
|
USB list dead?
by jfilling on May 17, 2005 |
jfilling
Posts: 4 Joined: Jun 12, 2008 Last seen: Jun 29, 2010 |
||
|
I discovered this issue during testing a while back. The
USBF_RX_ACK_TO_VAL_FS and USBF_TX_DATA_TO_VAL_FS values in the USB 2.0
function core are too small. Once I increased these timeouts, the core
started responding in a more reasonable fashion.
----- Original Message -----
From: Igor Mohorigor.mohor at g...>
To:
Date: Mon Dec 20 18:43:12 CET 2004
Subject: [usb] USB list dead?
Hi, everybody.
I sent a question some time ago to this list (see below). Now I'm
resending it and wondering if this list is dead or people just too
busy to answer.
If this doesn't work, I'll send another letter in a "Hello,
I'm a
student, send results" fasion.
Regards,
Igor
From: Igor Mohorigor.mohor at g...>
Date: Wed Dec 1 14:18:48 CET 2004
Subject: [usb] timeout values
Hi.
Are values used for "RX timeout" OK? The Opencores USB
core uses 400
ns for HS and and 622 ns for FS. I believe the value should be 816
bit
times for
HS (1.7 us) and 16-18 bit times for FS (1.33 us - 1.5 us).
Am I wrong or right?
Best regards,
Igor
|
|||
1/1