On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 07:59:51AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > With the patch for Kconfig above, and the original patch setting
> > ARCH_ZONE_DMA_BITS to 30, everything works.
> >
> > Do you have any ideas on what should trigger the change in ARCH_ZONE_BITS?
> > Should it be CONFIG_
On Wed, 2019-06-12 at 14:41 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 6/12/19 1:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >
> > Ooops, yes. But I think we could just enable ZONE_DMA on 32-bit
> > powerpc. Crude enablement hack below:
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
> > index 8c1c
On 6/12/19 1:55 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
Ooops, yes. But I think we could just enable ZONE_DMA on 32-bit
powerpc. Crude enablement hack below:
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig b/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
index 8c1c636308c8..1dd71a98b70c 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/Kconfig
+++ b/arch/powerpc/Kco
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:20:12PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> Your first patch did not work as the configuration does not have
> CONFIG_ZONE_DMA. As a result, the initial value of min_mask always starts
> at 32 bits and is taken down to 31 with the maximum pfn minimization. When
> I forced the
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 20:52 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 6/11/19 5:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 17:20 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> > > b43-pci-bridge 0001:11:00.0: dma_direct_supported: failed (mask =
> > > 0x3fff,
> > > min_mask = 0x5000/0x5000, dma
On 6/11/19 5:46 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:20:12PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
It is obvious that the case of a mask smaller than min_mask should be
handled by the IOMMU. In my system, CONFIG_IOMMU_SUPPORT is selected. All
other CONFIG variables containing IOMMU are
On 6/11/19 5:46 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 17:20 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
b43-pci-bridge 0001:11:00.0: dma_direct_supported: failed (mask =
0x3fff,
min_mask = 0x5000/0x5000, dma bits = 0x1f
Ugh ? A mask with holes in it ? That's very wrong... That min
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 17:20 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> b43-pci-bridge 0001:11:00.0: dma_direct_supported: failed (mask =
> 0x3fff,
> min_mask = 0x5000/0x5000, dma bits = 0x1f
Ugh ? A mask with holes in it ? That's very wrong... That min_mask is
bogus.
Ben.
Hi,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 05:20:12PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> It is obvious that the case of a mask smaller than min_mask should be
> handled by the IOMMU. In my system, CONFIG_IOMMU_SUPPORT is selected. All
> other CONFIG variables containing IOMMU are not selected. When
> dma_direct_suppor
On 6/11/19 1:05 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:09:47AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
What might be confusing in your output is that dev->dma_mask is a pointer,
and we are setting it in dma_set_mask. That is before we only check
if the pointer is set, and later we override
On Jun 10 2019, Larry Finger wrote:
> I do not understand why the if statement returns true as neither of the
> values is zero.
That's because the format string does not make any sense. You are
printing garbage.
> diff --git a/kernel/dma/mapping.c b/kernel/dma/mapping.c
> index f7afdad..ba2489
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 09:54 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:59:54PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> > Ah stupid me ... it's dma_set_mask that failed, since it has no
> > idea
> > that the calling driver is limited to lowmem.
> >
> > That's also why the "wrong"
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:59:54PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Ah stupid me ... it's dma_set_mask that failed, since it has no idea
> that the calling driver is limited to lowmem.
>
> That's also why the "wrong" patch worked.
>
> So yes, a ZONE_DMA at 30-bits will work, though it's som
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 04:58:12PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> ... which b43legacy doesn't set to the best of my knowledge ...
>
> Which makes me wonder how come it didn't work even with your patches ?
> AFAIK, we have less than 1GB of lowmem unless the config has been
> tweaked
I
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 16:58 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 08:08 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:56:33PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > wrote:
> > > The reason I think it sort-of-mostly-worked is that to get more
> > > than
> > > 1GB o
On Tue, 2019-06-11 at 08:08 +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:56:33PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> > The reason I think it sort-of-mostly-worked is that to get more
> > than
> > 1GB of RAM, those machines use CONFIG_HIGHMEM. And *most* network
> > buffers aren
On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 03:56:33PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> The reason I think it sort-of-mostly-worked is that to get more than
> 1GB of RAM, those machines use CONFIG_HIGHMEM. And *most* network
> buffers aren't allocated in Highmem so you got lucky.
>
> That said, there is suc
On Mon, Jun 10, 2019 at 11:09:47AM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
>>> return -EIO;
>>>
>>> For b43legacy, dev->dma_mask is 0xc2656848.
>>> dma_supported(dev, mask) is 0xc08b, mask is 0x3fff, and
>>> the routine returns -EIO.
>>>
>>> For b43, dev->dma_
On Mon, 2019-06-10 at 13:44 -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 6/7/19 11:21 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >
> > > Please try the attached patch. I'm not really pleased with it and I will
> > > continue to determine why the fallback to a 30-bit mask fails, but at
> > > least this
> > > one work
On 6/7/19 11:21 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Please try the attached patch. I'm not really pleased with it and I will
continue to determine why the fallback to a 30-bit mask fails, but at least this
one works for me.
Your patch only makes sense if the device is indeed capable of
addressi
On 6/10/19 3:18 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 04:52:24PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
On 6/7/19 12:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think we should work around this in the driver, we need to fix
it in the core. I'm curious why my previous patch didn't work. Can
you
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 04:52:24PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> On 6/7/19 12:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> I don't think we should work around this in the driver, we need to fix
>> it in the core. I'm curious why my previous patch didn't work. Can
>> you throw in a few printks what failed?
On 6/7/19 12:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think we should work around this in the driver, we need to fix
it in the core. I'm curious why my previous patch didn't work. Can
you throw in a few printks what failed? I.e. did dma_direct_supported
return false? Did the actual allocation
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 02:21:23PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > Please try the attached patch. I'm not really pleased with it and I will
> > continue to determine why the fallback to a 30-bit mask fails, but at least
> > this
> > one works for me.
>
> Your patch only makes sense
> Please try the attached patch. I'm not really pleased with it and I will
> continue to determine why the fallback to a 30-bit mask fails, but at least
> this
> one works for me.
Your patch only makes sense if the device is indeed capable of
addressing 31-bits.
So either the driver is buggy
On 6/7/19 12:29 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
I don't think we should work around this in the driver, we need to fix
it in the core. I'm curious why my previous patch didn't work. Can
you throw in a few printks what failed? I.e. did dma_direct_supported
return false? Did the actual allocation
I don't think we should work around this in the driver, we need to fix
it in the core. I'm curious why my previous patch didn't work. Can
you throw in a few printks what failed? I.e. did dma_direct_supported
return false? Did the actual allocation fail?
On 6/5/19 5:50 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
Hi,
When upgrading from v5.0 -> v5.1 on G4 PowerBook, I noticed WLAN does
not work anymore:
[ 42.004303] b43legacy-phy0: Loading firmware version 0x127, patch level 14
(2005-04-18 02:36:27)
[ 42.184837] b43legacy-phy0 debug: Chip initialized
[ 42.1
On 6/6/19 6:43 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:57:49PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Wow... that's an odd amount. One thing we could possibly do is add code
to limit the amount of RAM when we detect that device
Sent too quickly... I mean that *or* force swiot
On 6/6/19 6:43 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:57:49PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
Wow... that's an odd amount. One thing we could possibly do is add code
to limit the amount of RAM when we detect that device
Sent too quickly... I mean that *or* force swiot
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 08:57:49PM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Wow... that's an odd amount. One thing we could possibly do is add code
> > to limit the amount of RAM when we detect that device
>
> Sent too quickly... I mean that *or* force swiotlb at 30-bits on those
> systems ba
On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 20:56 +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 12:31 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:54:51AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> > wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 01:50 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 12:31 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:54:51AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 01:50 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > When upgrading from v5.0 -> v5.1 on G4 PowerBook, I noticed WLAN
> > > does
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 06, 2019 at 10:54:51AM +1000, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 01:50 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > When upgrading from v5.0 -> v5.1 on G4 PowerBook, I noticed WLAN does
> > not work anymore:
> >
> > [ 42.004303] b43legacy-phy0: Loading firmwar
On Wed, Jun 05, 2019 at 10:06:18PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> First of all, you have my sympathy for the laborious bisection on a
> PowerBook G4. I have done several myself. Thank you.
>
> I confirm your results.
>
> The ppc code has a maximum DMA size of 31 bits, thus a 32-bit request will
> f
On 6/5/19 5:50 PM, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
Hi,
When upgrading from v5.0 -> v5.1 on G4 PowerBook, I noticed WLAN does
not work anymore:
[ 42.004303] b43legacy-phy0: Loading firmware version 0x127, patch level 14
(2005-04-18 02:36:27)
[ 42.184837] b43legacy-phy0 debug: Chip initialized
[ 42.1
On Thu, 2019-06-06 at 01:50 +0300, Aaro Koskinen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When upgrading from v5.0 -> v5.1 on G4 PowerBook, I noticed WLAN does
> not work anymore:
>
> [ 42.004303] b43legacy-phy0: Loading firmware version 0x127, patch level 14
> (2005-04-18 02:36:27)
> [ 42.184837] b43legacy-phy0 de
Hi,
When upgrading from v5.0 -> v5.1 on G4 PowerBook, I noticed WLAN does
not work anymore:
[ 42.004303] b43legacy-phy0: Loading firmware version 0x127, patch level 14
(2005-04-18 02:36:27)
[ 42.184837] b43legacy-phy0 debug: Chip initialized
[ 42.184873] b43legacy-phy0 ERROR: The machine/k
38 matches
Mail list logo
