Now, Mike, play nice...
On Fri, 5 Apr 2002, Michael Smith wrote:
> > For ISA, this ends up being a 16M limit; I think the 2G limit
> > on Alpha is because the limit is 32 bits, but there is some
> > signed math that should be unsigned.
>
> No, Terry, it has to do with the PCI bridge's transla
> For ISA, this ends up being a 16M limit; I think the 2G limit
> on Alpha is because the limit is 32 bits, but there is some
> signed math that should be unsigned.
No, Terry, it has to do with the PCI bridge's translation mapping
hardware, and if we supported it (which we don't seem to) then th
>> I think it should go away. We should malloc space to hold the segments in
>> the leaf dma tags and base that size on the information in the tag. The
>> segments would only be allocated on the first dma_map_create call on a
>> tag so that intermediate (i.e. non-leaf) tags never have this stuff
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> >> a single buffer. I never realized that there was such controversy
> >> over this value... it was just put in so that I could have something
> >> for the non-GNUC case.
> >
> >Yeah, but, uh, it'll blow up in one's face.
>
> If it gets compile
>> a single buffer. I never realized that there was such controversy
>> over this value... it was just put in so that I could have something
>> for the non-GNUC case.
>
>Yeah, but, uh, it'll blow up in one's face.
If it gets compiled, I suppose so.
>The question I have is what *should* we b
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Justin T. Gibbs wrote:
> >BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE seems to be related to the 'largest xfer you will be allowed
> >to do at one time'- which is wrong because MAXPHYS is larger.
>
> If you look at the x86 implementation, BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE is only
> used in the non-GNUC case and is
>BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE seems to be related to the 'largest xfer you will be allowed
>to do at one time'- which is wrong because MAXPHYS is larger.
If you look at the x86 implementation, BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE is only
used in the non-GNUC case and is not referenced (I don't think)
by any driver code. Even
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > Thanks for the clarification. I was confusing BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE
> > with BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE_24BIT and BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE_32BIT.
> >
> > It's probably too late to rename BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE to something
> > like BUS_SPACE_MAXXFER. 8-(.
>
> Yes. If we've understood it at all.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Matthew Jacob wrote:
> > Neither is really applicable here. The actual limits for alpha depend on the
> > platforma and how you implement it. Typically, the bigger alphas have been
> > implemented with a 2GB direct mapped window, and then, if they have
Matthew Jacob wrote:
> Neither is really applicable here. The actual limits for alpha depend on the
> platforma and how you implement it. Typically, the bigger alphas have been
> implemented with a 2GB direct mapped window, and then, if they have it, a S/G
> map setup for the rest (if any) of memo
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> > Me too. I was about to just change it for alpha, but then I wondered
> > if there was a reason for having BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE < MAXPHYS.
>
> From what I understand, the Alpha is limited to doing transfers
> in the first 2G of
Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> Me too. I was about to just change it for alpha, but then I wondered
> if there was a reason for having BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE < MAXPHYS.
>From what I understand, the Alpha is limited to doing transfers
in the first 2G of memory. I'm not sure if the ISA 16M memory
limit is i
Oops. That wasn't it. Taking this offline.
On Thu, 4 Apr 2002, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> Actually, I suppose if you change:
>
>
> #define ISP_NSEG((MAXPHYS/PAGE_SIZE) + 1)
>
> to
>
> #define ISP_NSEG((BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE/PAGE_SIZE) + 1)
>
> this will probably be
Actually, I suppose if you change:
#define ISP_NSEG((MAXPHYS/PAGE_SIZE) + 1)
to
#define ISP_NSEG((BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE/PAGE_SIZE) + 1)
this will probably be more correct. I think this is probably what I should be
using anyway.
BTW- this was more of a 'hackers' o
Matthew Jacob writes:
>
> Ah- this bit Marcel with FreeBSD-ia64 too. I hadn't gotten too that.
>
> I haven't tried it yet in i386. Worked for in Alpha && Sparc64, but I guess it
> didn't work for all alphas. I just reinstalled 5.0 and will be trying an i386
> kernel shortly.
>
> It wou
Ah- this bit Marcel with FreeBSD-ia64 too. I hadn't gotten too that.
I haven't tried it yet in i386. Worked for in Alpha && Sparc64, but I guess it
didn't work for all alphas. I just reinstalled 5.0 and will be trying an i386
kernel shortly.
It would seem to me you can't have BUS_SPACE_MAXSIZE
I just booted a recent current (or rather attempted to) and saw this
when attempting to mount root from a qlogic card on my miata:
bus_dmamap_load: Too many segs! buf_len = 0x2000
spec_getpages:(da0a) I/O read failure: (error=22) bp
0xfe0004087ae8 vp 0xfe000ae9
size:
17 matches
Mail list logo
