In message: <[email protected]> Hans Petter Selasky <[email protected]> writes: : On Thursday 23 July 2009 20:53:06 Marcel Moolenaar wrote: : > All, : > : > I went over the thread and this is what I have to say about it: : > : > Using busdma to manage/control CPU caches is wrong for the : > following simple reason: bus_dmamap_sync() has the side-effect : > of copying to and from the bounce buffer (if applicable). : > : > CPU caches should be kept coherent by using an appropriate API. : > We already have cpu_flush_dcache(). All we have to do is add : > cpu_inval_dcache() and let the MD code determine how best to : > do this -- even if they decide to use busdma. : > : > In general: D-cache and I-cache control/handling should not be : > hidden from MI code. It should not be treated as an artifact of : > some platform. It should not be implemented by banking on some : > side-effect of other function(s). We only achieve efficient : > cache control if MI code calls appropriate APIs so that we can : > precisely express what we need to achieve at that point. : > : > For example: when we write a breakpoint into the text segment : > of some process by using ptrace(2), the ptrace(2) code must : > call an appropriate API to make sure that the I-cache is made : > coherent with memory. This may require a previous D-cache : > flush! We should not kluge uiomove(9) like we did on PowerPC : > to deal with this. Note ARM and ia64 are still broken in this : > respect. : : Hi, : : I would be fine with a solution where cpufunctions are used directly in USB. : The only problem is that if bounce pages are used, which happens in the case : of loading kernel virtual data into DMA, then busdma sync calls would still be : required.
They are needed on i386 kernels with more than 4GB of ram... Or ram located above 4GB... Warner _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-usb To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
