On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:49:14AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 11:06:06AM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > >> > >> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:50 AM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm not clear why you even need bounce buffers for RX. The chip > >>>>>> supports 64bit addresses with no boundary or alignment restrictions. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Some controllers have 4G boundary bug so bge(4) restricts dma > >>>>> address space. > >>>> > >>>> That limitation should be reflected in the boundary attribute of the > >>>> tag, not the lowaddr/highaddr attributes. > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes, but that needed more code. And I don't have these buggy > >>> controllers so I chose more simple way that would work even though > >>> it may be inefficient. > >> > >> Do you happen to know if one or both of the hardware I have access to > >> is the "buggy" hardware? > >> > > > > Yes, both devices below can not handle 4GB boundary crossing in DMA > > state machine. > > Thanks. I'll keep that in mind. If I have a few cycles I'll patch the > kernel to allow 64-bit DMA addresses with a 4G boundary restriction > and run that through stress2. >
I'll let you know when I have a patch to try on your box. I'm not sure when that could be done though. > -- > Marcel Moolenaar > xcl...@mac.com > > > _______________________________________________ svn-src-all@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-all To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-all-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
