Hi Stefan, On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:57 PM Stefan Theil <[email protected]> wrote: > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Bin Meng [mailto:[email protected]] > > Gesendet: Montag, 17. Dezember 2018 08:52 > > An: Stefan Theil > > Cc: U-Boot Mailing List; Michal Simek > > Betreff: Re: [PATCH v4] zynq-gem: Use appropriate cache flush/invalidate for > > RX and TX > > > > Hi Stefan, > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:49 PM Stefan Theil <stefan.theil@mixed- > > mode.de> wrote: > > > > > > The cache was only flushed before *transmitting* packets, but not when > > > receiving them, leading to an issue where new packets were handed to > > > the receive handler with old contents in cache. This only happens when > > > a lot of packets are received without sending packages every now and > > > then. Also flushing the receive buffers in the transmit function makes > > > no sense and can be removed. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Theil <[email protected]> > > > > > > --- > > > Changes for v2: > > > - Use invalidate_dcache_range instead of > > > flush_dcache_range > > > Changes for v3: > > > - Remove unnecessary flushing of all RX > > > buffers in zynq_gem_send > > > Changes for v4: > > > - Invalidate receive buffers after allocating > > > them in zynq_gem_probe > > > --- > > > drivers/net/zynq_gem.c | 12 ++++++------ > > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/net/zynq_gem.c b/drivers/net/zynq_gem.c index > > > 9bd79b198a..79a22fb1ed 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/net/zynq_gem.c > > > +++ b/drivers/net/zynq_gem.c > > > @@ -570,11 +570,6 @@ static int zynq_gem_send(struct udevice *dev, > > void *ptr, int len) > > > addr &= ~(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN - 1); > > > size = roundup(len, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN); > > > flush_dcache_range(addr, addr + size); > > > - > > > - addr = (ulong)priv->rxbuffers; > > > - addr &= ~(ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN - 1); > > > - size = roundup((RX_BUF * PKTSIZE_ALIGN), ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN); > > > - flush_dcache_range(addr, addr + size); > > > barrier(); > > > > > > /* Start transmit */ > > > @@ -621,6 +616,9 @@ static int zynq_gem_recv(struct udevice *dev, int > > > flags, uchar **packetp) > > > > > > *packetp = (uchar *)(uintptr_t)addr; > > > > > > + invalidate_dcache_range(addr, addr + roundup(PKTSIZE_ALIGN, > > ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN)); > > > + barrier(); > > > + > > > return frame_len; > > > } > > > > > > @@ -705,7 +703,9 @@ static int zynq_gem_probe(struct udevice *dev) > > > if (!priv->rxbuffers) > > > return -ENOMEM; > > > > > > - memset(priv->rxbuffers, 0, RX_BUF * PKTSIZE_ALIGN); > > > + u32 addr = (ulong)priv->rxbuffers; > > > + invalidate_dcache_range(addr, addr + roundup(RX_BUF * > > PKTSIZE_ALIGN, ARCH_DMA_MINALIGN)); > > > + barrier(); > > > > > > > Does this fix anything? I see no need to update this. > > I was just following Michal's suggestion > (https://lists.denx.de/pipermail/u-boot/2018-December/351969.html): > > Also in probe there should be flush of priv->rxbuffers to make sure that > > it is initialized properly. > > (memset(priv->rxbuffers, 0, RX_BUF * PKTSIZE_ALIGN); - this should be > > useless) >
Michal was suggesting 'flush', not 'invalidate', to make sure priv->rxbuffers is really initialized to zero by memset(). > > > > > /* Align bd_space to MMU_SECTION_SHIFT */ > > > bd_space = memalign(1 << MMU_SECTION_SHIFT, BD_SPACE); > > > -- > > Regards, Bin _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list [email protected] https://lists.denx.de/listinfo/u-boot
