drfrutuoso Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 Hi, I'm using 4.19.57-sunxi64 on a NanoPi NEO Plus2 and I'm wondering if there's a way to change some USB configurations just like I'd do with the cmdline.txt file on a RPi? I want to do some testing with USB over IP and for that I'd like to tweak the usb modules for better performance, liability. My armbianEnv.txt is as follows: Quote verbosity=1 console=both overlay_prefix=sun50i-h5 overlays=usbhost1 usbhost2 rootdev=UUID=a585aca3-aec7-475b-b43b-0a7875938ec7 rootfstype=ext4 usbstoragequirks=0x2537:0x1066:u,0x2537:0x1068:u Thanks in advance!
Igor Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 4 hours ago, drfrutuoso said: USB over IP You mean uspip or usb redirector?
drfrutuoso Posted October 1, 2019 Author Posted October 1, 2019 55 minutes ago, Igor said: You mean uspip or usb redirector? To be more specific, I'm working with USB Network Gate from Eltima Software which has its own module eveusb.
martinayotte Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 11 minutes ago, drfrutuoso said: To be more specific, I'm working with USB Network Gate from Eltima Software which has its own module eveusb. The only people that can support a "closed" software is themselves ...
drfrutuoso Posted October 1, 2019 Author Posted October 1, 2019 1 minute ago, martinayotte said: The only people that can support a "closed" software is themselves ... Right, but I'm not "stuck" with Eltima's software, reason why I didn't even mentioned it to begin with, what I am trying to find out is if there's any way to tweak the USB ports present on the NanoPi NEO Plus2, for instance forcing a 2.0 device to be used with 1.0 specifications (for example).
Igor Posted October 1, 2019 Posted October 1, 2019 3 hours ago, drfrutuoso said: forcing a 2.0 device to be used with 1.0 specifications I never needed such feature, so I would need to do the same. Looking into the kernel driver code, device tree, documentation?https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux.git/tree/Documentation/usb?h=v4.19.76 For device tree/driver code you better look into our source code just to make sure you don't miss anything relevant.
sfx2000 Posted October 5, 2019 Posted October 5, 2019 On 10/1/2019 at 7:18 AM, drfrutuoso said: Right, but I'm not "stuck" with Eltima's software, reason why I didn't even mentioned it to begin with, what I am trying to find out is if there's any way to tweak the USB ports present on the NanoPi NEO Plus2, for instance forcing a 2.0 device to be used with 1.0 specifications (for example). What USB classes are you looking to do? I did some work on the USB CDC-WDM stuff to interact with a modem as a redirect, and it was wicked nasty stuff to deal with... trust me on this, the USB implementation stuff in general is a pain, there are so many things to deal with to get it right. The usb-ip stuff that @Igor mentions is a good place to start looking.
drfrutuoso Posted October 7, 2019 Author Posted October 7, 2019 On 10/5/2019 at 4:40 AM, sfx2000 said: What USB classes are you looking to do? I did some work on the USB CDC-WDM stuff to interact with a modem as a redirect, and it was wicked nasty stuff to deal with... trust me on this, the USB implementation stuff in general is a pain, there are so many things to deal with to get it right. The usb-ip stuff that @Igor mentions is a good place to start looking. Mainly I'm working with card readers (RFID) and Image/Video processing devices. My main goal here is to be able to generate the most optimal image for NanoPi Neo Plus2, meaning I'd like to have a default config file to use on all images I'd create from now on... therefore, since I'm using all of the USB hosts, and over IP, I'd like to have the best performance coming from them.
sfx2000 Posted October 8, 2019 Posted October 8, 2019 On 10/1/2019 at 7:18 AM, drfrutuoso said: I am trying to find out is if there's any way to tweak the USB ports present on the NanoPi NEO Plus2, for instance forcing a 2.0 device to be used with 1.0 specifications Are you sure you need to push the configs there? Normally it's best to let the controllers negotiate and settle on a best match - since you're trying to do this over IP, focus on the IP aspects, and trust that the controller will sort things out.
Recommended Posts