>> It's hard to say what happens in this case. From the description you've
>> given of the control bit, I'd expect the lock-up to occur with the 21285
>> having bus ownership (because it sits waiting for a TRDY that never comes;
>> the latency timer doesn't really protect you against this case).
>
>I don't think the 21285 is at fault - it's looking like the Southbridge chip
>isn't behaving as PCI 2.1 would expect.
No, I don't think the 21285 is at fault either. In the scenario I described
above the 21285 is behaving correctly. If your observations are correct and
it does lock up with the southbridge having bus ownership then the fault could
be at either end -- the only way to find out would be to examine the bus
transactions that occur during and maybe just prior to the lockup.
>The arbiter is behaving as expected - in the total lock condition, the SA110
>is stalled while a memory read is processed. However, the 21285 doesn't have
>anything to do on the PCI, so it's request is not activated. Therefore, the
>arbiter does not remove the grant to the Southbridge since no other master is
>requesting the bus.
Yes, that was precisely my point.
>While looking for this, I suspect that the problems I'm seeing is why the chip
>has gone obsolete about a year ago. Unfortunately, Cypress have cleaned their
>web site of all obsolete erratas and data sheets.
Oh dear. These parts do usually have a pretty short lifespan though, typically
just a year or two.
p.
unsubscribe: body of `unsubscribe linux-arm' to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
