From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix, from userid 118) id 14D49E00C2A; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:25:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on yocto-www.yoctoproject.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 X-Spam-HAM-Report: * 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider * (festevam[at]gmail.com) * -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% * [score: 0.0000] * -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's * domain * 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily * valid * -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature * -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no * trust * [209.85.217.179 listed in list.dnswl.org] Received: from mail-ua0-f179.google.com (mail-ua0-f179.google.com [209.85.217.179]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC5D0E00BE9 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:25:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua0-f179.google.com with SMTP id j53so51901845uaa.2 for ; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:25:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=8g5Ds6mjk9yZU1BdiLZUBMmrhnPReHB4WlqFiixcDbE=; b=tDwoJVs4e3cGcC5fZuOGSthQu70aH51THSYCCReTcSROjXWw2sLGwU69GQlmTfQ9n0 ZlDc0BvDuISYH+SnTFiEoYdVVsS+TqOP3095U/60vb3B2lC5PDH3uPUEZemILo6wDsMC KYzhL48x1LyoSPMJD9uihfrfpTitm2qpxNUlpEp1SaNYKtvT2mWMw5+p4DXlZ0scUL+E bN1NgY/lRrXZW+yo/kREoKKpm9fVD6iuhp3qjQ20D5qXi84FsaIXe9L7zBfETY+vJcqY YRFPaFG57nSK2VbK4++1MIr3RYx8/XoA0cU2pxythi2xaP63pGClwcClbEZKHRF9xYfd idMA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=8g5Ds6mjk9yZU1BdiLZUBMmrhnPReHB4WlqFiixcDbE=; b=NGb2y7J7yusHG4kaG5LZCfTpZRFc7K4j2ma5Cg+AbOxuM/IZ+nXXmZIl7l3yEQewvR 7hszHRM0po4HclMxZF/3ScaqGmsQky1UwDbD9ZTa9fbkmupVaA/jNIUThWbAJ8zBoMTG maA+wXqst+ynzIdtwRoyYp/x1M27DIp31VS+GnjhBuNk4kxZZ4reake2GiIqGx60Xqhu S7adLM5vlIqi12MRx1ktZ3YuJPBDbVjauUlJvNdDjfdlqpJ5m+e4iaEYR4FhHoA8Y7Qq mwoDgvIpdYn8aN5OvQ1YeghNYyx4nNGBc9cv+8OwaUA7cawjQ4tVdejyn+lM2w71vWLC oedQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw110s+JD6qJi1YtQ+/kfqqWmtfbF97EONNsJtM5FlhPYwpSrZeZsw +LjPEcVOtLM0fouQm5gNvXTQTW6lcw== X-Received: by 10.176.71.87 with SMTP id i23mr7156661uac.150.1499685910139; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:25:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.31.204.1 with HTTP; Mon, 10 Jul 2017 04:25:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Fabio Estevam Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 08:25:09 -0300 Message-ID: To: Takashi Matsuzawa Cc: "meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org" , Otavio Salvador Subject: Re: unable to initialize libusb: -99 X-BeenThere: meta-freescale@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Usage and development list for the meta-fsl-* layers List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2017 11:25:15 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi Takashi, On Sun, Jul 9, 2017 at 11:45 PM, Takashi Matsuzawa wrote: > I just tried it with u-boot-fslc v2016.11, which is the default for morty. > > I have attached (xxx.tar) the patch I applied and the boot log. > > It now can report USB devices to lsusb command properly. Great, thanks for testing. > Looking into the patch, it is essentially not calling setup_iomux_eimnor() > and also not defining CONFIG_SYS_FLASH_BASE, etc. within mx6qsabreauto.h? Yes, the idea is to avoid pin conflict between WEIM and I2C3. I will submit this patch to the U-Boot list and will put you on Cc. > In the boot log, I still see some errors from si476x-core, but I am not sure > if they are normal or not. So far the system is booted and I can see sceen > is normal. I think it is normal. Are you booting with the CPU board only or with CPU + base board? I have tested the patch on a mx6dlsabreauto with only the CPU board and I compared the kernel boot logs with the NXP U-Boot and with mainline U-Boot. The logs match when the patch is applied and USB is functional. The errors we see in some peripherals like audio codec, audio tuner is because these devices are present in the base board only. Regards, Fabio Estevam