On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
Gary Thomas wrote:
Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 21, 2009, at 3:30 PM, Gary Thomas wrote:
The [two] big differences I see are that the video card (00:0d.0)
is being assigned 0xC0000000, which lspci marks as "virtual".
I think I've had trouble in the past with memory regions which
started at 0 relative to the PCI space. Also "virtual" concerns
me.
Does this spark any ideas from anyone?
Doesn't ring any bells. What does cat /proc/iomem look like
between the
two kernels.
About what I gleaned from lspci. The working 2.6.26 kernel has
space mapped in the controller (exposed memory window, I think)
and the video card got moved down accordingly.
---------------------------------- 2.6.26
c0000000-cfffffff : /p...@ff008500
c0000000-c7ffffff : 0000:00:00.0
c8000000-cbffffff : 0000:00:0c.0
c8000000-cbffffff : CoralP_fb
cc000000-cc0fffff : 0000:00:00.0
cc100000-cc11ffff : 0000:00:0b.0
cc120000-cc12ffff : 0000:00:0a.0
cc130000-cc13ffff : 0000:00:0a.0
cc140000-cc140fff : 0000:00:0b.0
cc140000-cc140fff : sata_promise
cc141000-cc141fff : 0000:00:0d.0
cc141000-cc141fff : ohci_hcd
cc142000-cc142fff : 0000:00:0d.1
cc142000-cc142fff : ohci_hcd
cc143000-cc1430ff : 0000:00:0d.2
cc143000-cc1430ff : ehci_hcd
cc143100-cc143100 : 0000:00:00.0
f0000000-f1ffffff : f0000000.flash
ff000200-ff0002ff : wdt
ff003000-ff0030ff : i2c
ff003100-ff0031ff : i2c
ff004500-ff004507 : serial
ff004600-ff004607 : serial
ff022000-ff022fff : usb
ff022000-ff022fff : ehci_hcd
ff023000-ff023fff : usb
ff023000-ff023fff : usb
ff023000-ff023fff : ehci_hcd
ff024000-ff024fff : ethernet
ff024520-ff02453f : mdio
ff025000-ff025fff : ethernet
---------------------------------- 2.6.28
c0000000-cfffffff : /p...@ff008500
c0000000-c3ffffff : 0000:00:0c.0
c0000000-c3ffffff : CoralP_fb
c4000000-c401ffff : 0000:00:0b.0
c4020000-c402ffff : 0000:00:0a.0
c4030000-c403ffff : 0000:00:0a.0
c4040000-c4040fff : 0000:00:0b.0
c4040000-c4040fff : sata_promise
c4041000-c4041fff : 0000:00:0d.0
c4041000-c4041fff : ohci_hcd
c4042000-c4042fff : 0000:00:0d.1
c4042000-c4042fff : ohci_hcd
c4043000-c40430ff : 0000:00:0d.2
c4043000-c40430ff : ehci_hcd
f0000000-f1ffffff : f0000000.flash
ff004500-ff004507 : serial
ff004600-ff004607 : serial
ff022000-ff022fff : usb
ff022000-ff022fff : ehci_hcd
ff023000-ff023fff : usb
ff023000-ff023fff : usb
ff023000-ff023fff : ehci_hcd
ff024000-ff024fff : ethernet
ff024520-ff02453f : mdio
ff025000-ff025fff : ethernet
I'm still looking into how the PCI address register for the video
card did not get written, even though the system obviously thinks
it did (hence "virtual")
It most definitely has something to do with 0xC0000000 being
assigned to the video card. I changed my DTS to move everything
up (started the whole space at 0xC4000000) and the video card
came to life! Of course, I'm not interested in this hack,
so the simplest thing would be to figure out why 2.6.26 allocated
that outgoing window and 2.6.28 doesn't
So I think the difference is due to the change in PCI code between
2.6.26 and .28 for 83xx. If you notice we exclude the FSL device in .
26 you have:
c0000000-c7ffffff : 0000:00:00.0
and in .28 its gone. This accounts for the allocation differences.
What I don't get is why the behavior would vary based on address.
Can you dump out the PCI inbound/outbound registers. I have a theory
as to what's going on and want to confirm it.
- k
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org
https://ozlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
