On Thursday 12 November 2009 12:42:47 Andrew Benton wrote:
On 11/11/09 19:12, Larry Finger wrote:
Such an error in SLUB handling could be arising from a DMA problem in b43,
but
it could also arise from a memory error. Please run memtest86+ for an
extended
period so that a hardware
On 11/11/09 19:12, Larry Finger wrote:
Such an error in SLUB handling could be arising from a DMA problem in b43, but
it could also arise from a memory error. Please run memtest86+ for an extended
period so that a hardware error can be ruled out. A 24 hour run would be good.
If that is not
On 12/11/09 00:37, Larry Finger wrote:
Andy,
Please try the patch below to see what we can learn from the DMA descriptor
errors. Some of this code is temporary, but there are also some statements
that
will probably become permanent.
Please post any messages that result.
The patch failed
On Thursday 12 November 2009 13:16:31 Andrew Benton wrote:
On 12/11/09 00:37, Larry Finger wrote:
Andy,
Please try the patch below to see what we can learn from the DMA descriptor
errors. Some of this code is temporary, but there are also some statements
that
will probably become
On 11/12/2009 06:16 AM, Andrew Benton wrote:
On 12/11/09 00:37, Larry Finger wrote:
Andy,
Please try the patch below to see what we can learn from the DMA descriptor
errors. Some of this code is temporary, but there are also some statements
that
will probably become permanent.
Please
On 12/11/09 15:50, Larry Finger wrote:
Sorry about the kernel mismatch. I developed that patch while offline and
waiting at an auto repair place and forgot to refresh my sources before
sending
it. The revised version that Michael sent should work. If not, please let me
know and I will send
On Thursday 12 November 2009 17:42:07 Andrew Benton wrote:
On 12/11/09 15:50, Larry Finger wrote:
Sorry about the kernel mismatch. I developed that patch while offline and
waiting at an auto repair place and forgot to refresh my sources before
sending
it. The revised version that Michael
On 11/12/2009 10:53 AM, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 17:42:07 Andrew Benton wrote:
On 12/11/09 15:50, Larry Finger wrote:
Sorry about the kernel mismatch. I developed that patch while offline and
waiting at an auto repair place and forgot to refresh my sources before
On 12/11/09 17:14, Larry Finger wrote:
I guess I'm a failure at writing diagnostic patches. Until there is a DMA
error,
the only effect of the patch is to add a little extra time to the routine that
fills in the descriptor structure, and it adds to the data and code size. If
any
of those
On Thursday 12 November 2009 19:45:45 Andrew Benton wrote:
On 12/11/09 17:14, Larry Finger wrote:
I guess I'm a failure at writing diagnostic patches. Until there is a DMA
error,
the only effect of the patch is to add a little extra time to the routine
that
fills in the descriptor
On 11/12/2009 12:45 PM, Andrew Benton wrote:
On 12/11/09 17:14, Larry Finger wrote:
I guess I'm a failure at writing diagnostic patches. Until there is a DMA
error,
the only effect of the patch is to add a little extra time to the routine
that
fills in the descriptor structure, and it adds
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 19:45:45 Andrew Benton wrote:
On 12/11/09 17:14, Larry Finger wrote:
I guess I'm a failure at writing diagnostic patches. Until there is a DMA
error,
the only effect of the patch is to add a little extra time to the routine
that
fills in
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:33:54 Larry Finger wrote:
Nov 12 18:40:43 doughnut kernel: b43: Descr. 0: 0x0 0x930 0x364BD020
0x8000
Nov 12 18:40:43 doughnut kernel: b43: Descr. 1: 0x0 0x930 0x364BF020
0x8000
Nov 12 18:40:43 doughnut kernel: b43: Descr. 2: 0x0 0x930
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:32:32 William Bourque wrote:
Sorry for the late reply... I seem to have the exact same bug here. Do
you need more people to run the diagnostic patch?
Well, it doesn't hurt.
--
Greetings, Michael.
___
Bcm43xx-dev
On 11/12/2009 01:48 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
Now we have some progress. You will note the difference in the control words
(first 2 columns) for descriptors 8 9. They are wrong.
What do you think is wrong here? I think the control words are OK.
At the point where I captured them, I didn't
On Thursday 12 November 2009 21:10:59 Larry Finger wrote:
Do the address_low values for 8 and 9 look right? They
should be aligned on a 4K boundary.
Is this really a requirement? I think the 4k alignment is only required
for the descriptor memory. We never guaranteed any alignment for the skbs.
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:33:54 Larry Finger wrote:
While Michael is coming up with a test patch,
Here you go:
http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091112-2213/patches/001-b43-rewrite-dma-ring-alloc.patch
Please test this patch (also on 64bit-DMA devices that currently work
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:32:32 William Bourque wrote:
Sorry for the late reply... I seem to have the exact same bug here. Do
you need more people to run the diagnostic patch?
Well, it doesn't hurt.
Here we go.
I think we can observe the same problem :
[
On Thursday 12 November 2009 22:34:00 William Bourque wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:32:32 William Bourque wrote:
Sorry for the late reply... I seem to have the exact same bug here. Do
you need more people to run the diagnostic patch?
Well, it doesn't
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 22:34:00 William Bourque wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:32:32 William Bourque wrote:
Sorry for the late reply... I seem to have the exact same bug here. Do
you need more people to run the diagnostic patch?
On Thursday 12 November 2009 22:59:26 William Bourque wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 22:34:00 William Bourque wrote:
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:32:32 William Bourque wrote:
Sorry for the late reply... I seem to have the exact same bug
On 11/12/2009 03:16 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:33:54 Larry Finger wrote:
While Michael is coming up with a test patch,
Here you go:
http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091112-2213/patches/001-b43-rewrite-dma-ring-alloc.patch
Please test this patch
On Friday 13 November 2009 00:04:50 Larry Finger wrote:
On 11/12/2009 03:16 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Thursday 12 November 2009 20:33:54 Larry Finger wrote:
While Michael is coming up with a test patch,
Here you go:
http://bu3sch.de/patches/wireless-testing/20091112-2213/patches/001
/wireless-testing/20091112-2213/patches/001-b43-rewrite-dma-ring-alloc.patch
Please test this patch (also on 64bit-DMA devices that currently work).
It seriously lacks some comments, but I'll add them later if that works.
The patch did not break my working 4315 (LP PHY) system.
Did this system
On Friday 13 November 2009 00:23:59 Larry Finger wrote:
No, then was a 14e4:4311. I have now installed that same card and it seems to
be
working without the workaround. When I had that problem, I had a different
laptop than I do now, thus it is not possible to reduplicate the setup. I am
On 11/12/2009 05:57 PM, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 13 November 2009 00:23:59 Larry Finger wrote:
No, then was a 14e4:4311. I have now installed that same card and it seems
to be
working without the workaround. When I had that problem, I had a different
laptop than I do now, thus it is
26 matches
Mail list logo
