Question is the USB on the empeg an Slave or Both???
Please saye Both (I´v heard it's slave only)

if it slave only, is it then an hardware or software issue,and can it be change.
Because I want to connect an USB-MobilPhone/voice modem and an USB-Microphone to it and make a software that can use the empeg as an handfree instalation.
plus read SMS and e-mail on the display.

that gives the posibility to connect an USB-storage unit(cd-rom, zip, HD), USB-Keyboard, USB-Speaker, USB-Com1-8 USB-GPS and see http://www.usb.org/app/search/products

if it set up as an host I knowe that you cant connect it directly to the pc, and I havce also thourt of that, hier is some posibillity how to conect.(USB-USB and USB-Ethernet)
http://www.ezlinkusb.com and
www.netchip.com,"usb-products","turboconnect"
they probaly write the linux software for you, if you can sell 10.000+ units garantied.


Mark
emaks rouls #10677

It's a slave only. As far as I've seen, there aren't any USB chips which will function as slave *and* host - and we *have* to work as a slave so we can plug into PCs - after all, this is the primary use of the USB port.

Sorry!

Hugo

How big a change is it to change it to a host?
If it is a component issue, will you perhaps make a second model that has a USB “host” connector?

I’m more interested in a unit that has a “host” USB, that way I don’t neat the COM, I can always connect an USB-COM adapter, so it is not needed. And to connect to my PC there is already a couple different possibilities, USB “host to USB “host” adapter and USB to Ethernet. So I wont be missing the USB “slave” and the COM.

As you have said earlier: ‘we live of making software not hardware’ so a host unit will give you more possibility of future software components.


Mark
emaks rouls #10677

It's not a small issue to add USB host support. USB host controllers are generally integrated into x86 chipsets, or PCI-based. We have no PCI bus on the empeg, which means this gets pretty hard. A USB slave doesn't deal with the packet ordering and scheduling needed by a host, and doesn't need DMA access to main memory.

Our only option is a SA1101 chip, which works with the SA1100. However, there is (a) not room for this on the PCB and (b) it costs as much as the CPU itself!

If we fitted a USB host port, we would then have to include with the unit a USB host<>host adaptor to allow the 99% of users who just want to download tunes to the unit to use USB at all.

Sorry, but USB host is not on the menu :(

Hugo

Aren't there devices you can buy called USB hubs? Perhaps they would allow connecting slaves togeather for the few that need it .

just a thought.

No, USB hubs don't allow slaves to communicate. USB systems only ever have one host and many slaves - all data goes between the host and the slaves, never between slaves.

Hugo

I think I have a solution for this. ATMEL uC

With two Atmel chips someone could make a Function/Function device bridge.

Such a device should allow the use of the following devices.

Keyboard, bluetooth, flash and harddrive storage, wireless and wired ethernet, serial comm port expansion, anything you can do with a micro controller, basicaly the skys the limit.

I have often wished for something to do this type of thing.

I think the sticky point may be the way USB functions: slaves are slaves, and don't normally initiate anything. If there's way to let them do this, then it could be a go.

Needs lots of special driver software on each end, plus the middle.

Cheers

Sticky indeed

Forgive me mlord as this post contains much of the content I sent via PM to you.

The drafters of the USB spec went to great pains to avoid the terms "Master" and "Slave" instead choosing "Host" and "Function" tho I feel the former are more technically correct terms to describe this type of system I will use the bastardised USB terminology.

Yes you are correct the USB spec says Function devices can't talk to each other.

I see four options three of witch require custom hardware and all need software changes to the Empeg.

Hack the Empeg to implement USB on the go.
" " to output something (in violation of USB 1.1 spec) to start communication with the custom Host bridge device.
Poll the Empeg from the Host bridge device to see if it wants to talk. (This looks to be the simplest way)
Connect an Empeg serial port to the bridge to signal it wants to talk. (The tuner port may have control wires making this easier)

All the special software would be confined to the Empeg and the bridge firmware. The accessory Function devices should not need any changes.

I'm still looking for info on how devices are detected and how keystrokes are sent. one exploitable method for contacting the Host may be to make the Empeg disappear and return to the USB bus.

Granted for just a storage device this is all a moot point, there are ethernet devices that support USB storage media to be mounted as network file servers.

A much simpler approach may be to just have an ethernet attached USB host, and have the empeg relay through that using standard TCP/IP.

Cheers

Thats what I getting at tward the bottem part of my last post, but what types of devices do the ethernet USB Host boxes support?

maybe rewire the MK2 and sled for docked ethernet, and maybe use a switch to toggle between the serial port and the ethernet port depending on what sled is being used.

As you know the NSLU2 can run linux.

pros
it can run linux
it has 2 Host USB ports(expandable to 5),
internal serial port
10/100 ethernet
internal Function USB port
runs on low voltage DC
has 133MHz ARM processor (simple hack to upgrade to 266MHz)
can give any empeg USB host support+extra serial port, and ethernet to the MK1.

cons
costs $75 and up
needs to be hardware hacked to auto power up and down.
storage costs extra.