Re: U-boot on RPI3, sees disk but won't boot it [devnum/port paths vs. U-Boot address numbering]
- In reply to: Mark Millard : "Re: U-boot on RPI3, sees disk but won't boot it"
- Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]
Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 21:35:29 UTC
On 2022-Sep-23, at 18:34, Mark Millard <marklmi@yahoo.com> wrote: > On 2022-Sep-23, at 16:52, Hans Petter Selasky <hps@selasky.org> wrote: > >> On 9/23/22 04:11, Mark Millard wrote: >>> As I understand it USB* standards do not define a stable >>> order for devices to enumerate. So even if all the boots >>> worked, if you had a record of the "USB device tree" for >>> each you would likely find that the trees varied in what >>> the numbering (and, so ordering) was. >> >> FYI >> >> LibUSB defines : >> >> int libusb_get_port_numbers(libusb_device *dev, uint8_t *buf, uint8_t >> bufsize) Stores, in the buffer buf of size bufsize, the list of all port >> numbers from root for the device dev. >> >> Which gives you are more or less constant path. > > You may not want to spend the effort educate me, as I've no > detailed knowledge in the area to relay on. Also, I've no > clue if U-Boot uses the routine (or related ones). > > The original context here was a RPi3B, so USB2 ports on the > RPi3B itself, not USB3+ (in case it matters). Ignoring that > for the below . . . > > Looking up the routine at: > > https://libusb.sourceforge.io/api-1.0/group__libusb__dev.html#details > > I see the description: > > Get the list of all port numbers from root for the specified device. > > where: > > Parameters are: > dev a device > port_numbers the array that should contain the port numbers > port_numbers_len the maximum length of the array. As per the USB 3.0 specs, > the current maximum limit for the depth is 7. > > Returns is: > the number of elements filled > LIBUSB_ERROR_OVERFLOW if the array is too small > > But the original device trees reported showed: > (unsure how well the text and its whitespace > will go through in the trees) > > USB device tree: > 1 Hub (480 Mb/s, 0mA) > | U-Boot Root Hub > | > +-2 Hub (480 Mb/s, 2mA) > | > +-3 Vendor specific (12 Mb/s, 90mA) > | FTDI FT232R USB UART AM00KE3E > | > +-4 Vendor specific (480 Mb/s, 2mA) > | > +-5 Hub (480 Mb/s, 100mA) > | GenesysLogic USB2.1 Hub > | > +-6 Mass Storage (480 Mb/s, 500mA) > JMicron > > and: > > USB device tree: > 1 Hub (480 Mb/s, 0mA) > | U-Boot Root Hub > | > +-2 Hub (480 Mb/s, 2mA) > | > +-3 Hub (480 Mb/s, 100mA) > | | GenesysLogic USB2.1 Hub > | | > | +-6 Mass Storage (480 Mb/s, 500mA) > | JMicron SABRENT 000000000000A > | > +-4 Vendor specific (12 Mb/s, 90mA) > | FTDI FT232R USB UART AM00KE3E > | > +-5 Vendor specific (480 Mb/s, 2mA) > > without rearranging any connections, if I understand > right. > > Both "USB device tree"s have: > > 1's device (a hub) contains 2 directly. > 2's device contains 3, 4, and 5 directly. > > But the correspondence with the devices > associated with 3, 4, 5 is not the same. > > I do not see anything in the libusb_get_port_numbers > material that would imply they should be the same. > Any permutation for the correspondence of the 3 > devices relative to the numbers 3, 4, and 5 appears > to be valid, even if it varies from power up to > power up (for example). Just the set of numbers in > the array {3,4,5} is observed to be invariant as I > understand. > > May be something in the USB 3.0(?) specifications > nails down such relationships. But if it does, then > "2" is not behaving correctly if the numbers 3,4,5 are > port numbers. > > Another possibility is that the numbering in the two > "USB device tree"s is not technically the port numbers > but some other form of id-number, possibly U-Boot > invented even. I see from the debug output from the investigation going on that that last is the case. Something like: devnum=2 port=4: USB dev found ends up with something like a: set address 3 and the "usb tree" is showing these assigned addresses. The order of the devnum/port events varies and the set address numbers increase as they happen, providing a flat indexing instead of nested. But addresses need not be stable from power-up to power-up, for example. devnum/port paths are stable from what I can tell. It does not appear that normal U-Boot usb commands generally indicate the devnum/port nested path numbering. Instead showing the flat addresses that have been dynamically assigned. === Mark Millard marklmi at yahoo.com