2009/11/5 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx>: > > There are two cases where we can use the PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE: > > 1) Hardware has been designed to use it on some block to align some data somehow > 2) Software uses it to align skb->data for performance/hw purposes > > I believe the second case can be handled by using L1_CACHE_BYTES > instead and I'd at least like to change our common skb allocator to > use that. > > The first case is where it seems there may be some skepticism as to > whether or not hw really did not rely on it and I agree its safer to > keep the programming of the PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE in case it has a > bogus value. > > Does this seem reasonable? > > Luis > Yup, i believe 2 is the case, from what i've read the problem is that we get corrupted data so i guess we can just use the L1_CACHE_BYTES to align skb->data and not write anything to PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE if you think that will work. Just be sure to test on some ath5k cards (don't have time for anything right now ;-( ). I believe having cleaner code is better than supporting an ancient chip anyway, if this is really necessary for AR5210 -writing PCI_CACHE_LINE_SIZE- we can deal with it later. -- GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
