Bug 712

Summary:	USB device not accepting new address.
Product:	Drivers	Reporter:	Dave Jones (davej)
Component:	USB	Assignee:	Greg Kroah-Hartman (greg)
Status:	REJECTED UNREPRODUCIBLE
Severity:	normal
Priority:	P2
Hardware:	i386
OS:	Linux
Kernel Version:	2.5.69-bk8	Subsystem:
Regression:	---	Bisected commit-id:

Description Dave Jones 2003-05-13 06:57:29 UTC

Booting up with an ov511 camera attached, the camera isn't detected.

uhci-hcd 00:07.2: VIA Technologies, In USB
uhci-hcd 00:07.2: irq 11, io base 0000c400
Please use the 'usbfs' filetype instead, the 'usbdevfs' name is deprecated.
uhci-hcd 00:07.2: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 1
hub 1-0:0: USB hub found
hub 1-0:0: 2 ports detected
PCI: Found IRQ 11 for device 00:07.3
PCI: Sharing IRQ 11 with 00:07.2
PCI: Sharing IRQ 11 with 00:09.0
PCI: Sharing IRQ 11 with 00:11.0
uhci-hcd 00:07.3: VIA Technologies, In USB (#2)
uhci-hcd 00:07.3: irq 11, io base 0000c800
uhci-hcd 00:07.3: new USB bus registered, assigned bus number 2
hub 2-0:0: USB hub found
hub 2-0:0: 2 ports detected
drivers/usb/core/usb.c: registered new driver ov511
drivers/usb/media/ov511.c: v1.64 for Linux 2.5 : ov511 USB Camera Driver


unplugging, and replugging the camera does this...

hub 1-0:0: debounce: port 2: delay 100ms stable 4 status 0x101
hub 1-0:0: new USB device on port 2, assigned address 4
usb 1-2: USB device not accepting new address=4 (error=-110)
hub 1-0:0: new USB device on port 2, assigned address 5
usb 1-2: USB device not accepting new address=5 (error=-110)

This worked up until very recently. (Maybe even in 2.5.69)

Comment 1 Greg Kroah-Hartman 2003-05-13 09:31:05 UTC

Can you verify that 2.5.69 did work?

Comment 2 Greg Kroah-Hartman 2003-05-13 13:19:39 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 10 ***

Comment 3 Dave Jones 2003-05-13 15:18:40 UTC

Hang on, this still happens with acpi=off.
I don't think this is the same bug at all.

Comment 4 Dave Jones 2003-05-13 18:05:20 UTC

bizarre. I was using this camera fine yesterday. The oldest that kernel could
have been was bitkeeper of somewhere between 2.5.68 + 2.5.69.
I just built 2.5.68 and 2.5.69 kernels, and neither of them work. They both fail
in the same way as below.

Comment 5 Dave Jones 2003-06-08 11:17:59 UTC

Seems fixed in 2.5.70-bk