Hi Jocke, I am running a 2.4.18 kernel. Maybe that's the problem? But let me guess: keeping the invalidate_dcache_range() would be fine as well for our 8xx board?
Stephan > -----Original Message----- > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:joakim.tjernlund at lumentis.se] > Sent: Dienstag, 4. Februar 2003 10:59 > To: Stephan Linke > Cc: Linuxppc-Embedded > Subject: RE: [PATCH] arch/ppc/8xx_io/enet.c, version 3 > > > > > > Hi, > > > > I am on an 862. Anyway I can't find another definition of dma_cache_inv() > > but the NO OP in asm-ppc/io.h. Could you give > me e hint > > where it is defined in your kernel? > > It's in asm-ppc/io.h (2.4.20) and there are 2 definitions of dma_cache_inv() > which depends on > CONFIG_NOT_COHERENT_CACHE(should be defined for 8xx). What kernel version are > you running? > > Jocke > > > > Thanks, Stephan > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:joakim.tjernlund at lumentis.se] > > > Sent: Montag, 3. Februar 2003 18:23 > > > To: Stephan Linke > > > Subject: RE: [PATCH] arch/ppc/8xx_io/enet.c, version 3 > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jocke, > > > > > > > > in your latest patch you are using dma_cache_inv() instead of > > > > invalidate_dcache_range(). > > > > The only dma_cache_inv() I can find is in include/asm-ppc/io.h. and > > > > it's a "do{}while (0)". > > > > Are you shure that this was your intention? It seames to me like you > > > > could remove that call as well. > > > > > > I guess you are on 8260? On 8260 there is no need for > > > invalidate_dcache_range() since > > > it's the CPM is cache coherent. On 8xx it is not cache coherent. I > > > switched > > > to dma_cache_inv() because it's a no op on 8260 and a > > > invalidate_dcache_range() on 8xx so > > > it would be easy to adapt the patch to both CPU's. > > > > > > Jocke > > > > > > > > > > > > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
