On Tue, 26 Jul 2011 10:33:30 -0500 Larry Finger <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 07/26/2011 03:24 AM, Rafał Miłecki wrote: > > W dniu 25 lipca 2011 23:54 użytkownik Rafał Miłecki<[email protected]> > > napisał: > >> Now, the question: when for real we should use such a solution? > >> > >> Larry, could you check your driver? Can you see anything about this? > >> Is this maybe PCI (not PCIe!) specific? > > > > I've checked thread "Interesting 14e4:4321". It seems both: 14e4:4321 > > and 14e4:4322 are using PCI slot and both are not working in DMA mode. > > I start believing it's PCI specific. > > > > If you take a look at current ssb code and defines: > >> if (ssb_read32(dev, SSB_TMSHIGH)& SSB_TMSHIGH_DMA64) > >> return SSB_PCIE_DMA_H32; > >> else > >> return SSB_PCI_DMA; > > You can see 0x80000000 (SSB_PCIE_DMA_H32) has actually "PCIE" in it's > > name. This can be true that 0x80000000 is *only* for *64-bit DMA* on > > *PCIe*. > > That is almost correct. This time I found it. The pseudo code is: > > dma_addr_lo = 0 > dma_addr_hi = 0 > if PCI || PCIe > if PCIe && 64-bit DMA > dma_addr_hi = 0x80000000 > else > if chipID is 0x4322, 43221, 43231, or 43222 > dma_addr_lo = 0x80000000 > else > dma_addr_lo = 0x40000000 <== your case Oh dear. I was already wondering: Man, it can't be _that_ simple to just look at a bit to determine something as trivial as the routing bits. I'm glad Broadcom finally managed to fix this, though. -- Greetings, Michael. _______________________________________________ b43-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/b43-dev
