On Jun 11, 2010, at 11:52 AM, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > 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.
Not to worry. I appreciate your support. Just let me know when you want me to test something. -- 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"
