USB

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

I installed all the drivers from the CD on my GA 7VT600 1394. USB controller
1,2,3,& 4 are showing 1.1. Controller 5 is showing 2.0. Shouldn't all the
USB's be 2.0?
Rudy

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"Rudy Kube" <rudykube@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Y8WdnenEPpMi2iPcRVnysw@giganews.com
> I installed all the drivers from the CD on my GA 7VT600 1394. USB
> controller 1,2,3,& 4 are showing 1.1. Controller 5 is showing 2.0.
> Shouldn't all the USB's be 2.0?
> Rudy

No, there is only one "enhanced usb controller" or, whatever it's called
with your driver, listed. The trick is that this controller takes over from
any 1.0 port as soon as an usb 2.0 device is plugged in.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"DevilsPGD" <devilspgd@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:6g2tr01c7lek1edff57cps1r1874iap556@news.octanews.com
> In message <41be4d26$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> "SteveK"
> <nospam@iPrimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>> No, there is only one "enhanced usb controller" or, whatever it's called
>> with your driver, listed. The trick is that this controller takes over
>> from any 1.0 port as soon as an usb 2.0 device is plugged in.
>
> How odd. Cool, but odd.

Not really, u can see that the usb 2 controller got a different IRQ than the
usb 1.0. Once an usb 2 device is plugged into any port it gets the enhanced
usb controller's irq assigned and that's all the magic behind it.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"DevilsPGD" <devilspgd@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:h08tr05jnd2715bam1kiboqlllj30fgihj@news.octanews.com
> In message <41be9c2f_1@news.iprimus.com.au> "SteveK"
> <nospam@iPrimus.com.au> wrote:
>
>>>> No, there is only one "enhanced usb controller" or, whatever it's
>>>> called with your driver, listed. The trick is that this controller
>>>> takes over from any 1.0 port as soon as an usb 2.0 device is plugged
>>>> in.
>>>
>>> How odd. Cool, but odd.
>>
>> Not really, u can see that the usb 2 controller got a different IRQ than
>> the usb 1.0. Once an usb 2 device is plugged into any port it gets the
>> enhanced usb controller's irq assigned and that's all the magic behind
>> it.
>
> It just seems odd to implement the controller that way, rather then just
> going with a straight 2.0 controller across the board.

I think there is only one 2.0 controller handling both usb modes!
Talking about VIA VT600 chipset it's the VT8237 southbridge chip containing
one 8 port usb controller.
Don't let the device manager confuse u thinking there are two controllers
employed.
The whole usb idea is based on plain irq sharing - 2 usb modes, two irqs is
all it takes to serve 8 ports in each mode by one controller. The irq tells
the controller in which usb mode to communicate with the device.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.gigabyte (More info?)

"DevilsPGD" <devilspgd@crazyhat.net> wrote in message
news:4matr0phttas3g3eu47rrg3huto84kd2oa@news.octanews.com
> In message <41bea5fe$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au> "SteveK"
> <nospam@iPrimus.com.au> wrote:
>
....
>>> going with a straight 2.0 controller across the board.
>>
>> I think there is only one 2.0 controller handling both usb modes!
>> Talking about VIA VT600 chipset it's the VT8237 southbridge chip
>> containing one 8 port usb controller.
>> Don't let the device manager confuse u thinking there are two controllers
>> employed.
>> The whole usb idea is based on plain irq sharing - 2 usb modes, two irqs
>> is all it takes to serve 8 ports in each mode by one controller. The irq
>> tells the controller in which usb mode to communicate with the device.
>
> I realize that there is only one controller -- That's why I don't
> understand the split IRQ and apparent "device" implementation as far as
> the device manager goes, it sounds like it would complicate the
> implementation significantly.

The kinda device implementation in the device manager is just a way
(interface) to give u the possibility to monitor/manage the usb devices.
Yes, the usb devices are real devices.
Think of the usb device variety on the market - keyboard, mouse, hd... it's
plenty.
The IRQ split? - do you mean it would be realistic to handle usb1.0/2.0
devices with a single interrupt?
Imaging 4 usb 1.0 devices and two usb 2.0 devices are connected - usb 1.0 is
so slow it would completely spoil the usb 2.0 performance. Therefore usb 2.0
is on its own irq and this way completely independent from usb 1.0 - a very
performance wise move!