W dniu 10 sierpnia 2011 18:33 użytkownik Michael Büsch <m@xxxxxxx> napisał:
> On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:11:28 +0200
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
>> index 0953ce1..9a2b678 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
>> @@ -174,7 +174,10 @@ static void op64_fill_descriptor(struct b43_dmaring *ring,
>> addrhi = (((u64) dmaaddr >> 32) & ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK);
>> addrext = (((u64) dmaaddr >> 32) & SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
>> >> SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_SHIFT;
>> - addrhi |= ring->dev->dma.translation;
>> + if (ring->dev->dma.translation_in_low)
>> + addrlo |= ring->dev->dma.translation;
>> + else
>> + addrhi |= ring->dev->dma.translation;
>> if (slot == ring->nr_slots - 1)
>> ctl0 |= B43_DMA64_DCTL0_DTABLEEND;
>> if (start)
>> @@ -656,10 +659,12 @@ static int alloc_initial_descbuffers(struct b43_dmaring *ring)
>> static int dmacontroller_setup(struct b43_dmaring *ring)
>> {
>> int err = 0;
>> + int tmp;
>> u32 value;
>> u32 addrext;
>> u32 trans = ring->dev->dma.translation;
>> bool parity = ring->dev->dma.parity;
>> + u32 addrs[2];
>>
>> if (ring->tx) {
>> if (ring->type == B43_DMA_64BIT) {
>> @@ -673,12 +678,14 @@ static int dmacontroller_setup(struct b43_dmaring *ring)
>> if (!parity)
>> value |= B43_DMA64_TXPARITYDISABLE;
>> b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_TXCTL, value);
>> - b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_TXRINGLO,
>> - (ringbase & 0xFFFFFFFF));
>> - b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_TXRINGHI,
>> - ((ringbase >> 32) &
>> - ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
>> - | trans);
>> +
>> + addrs[0] = ringbase & 0xFFFFFFFF;
>> + addrs[1] = ringbase >> 32;
>> + tmp = ring->dev->dma.translation_in_low ? 0 : 1;
>> + addrs[tmp] &= ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK;
>> + addrs[tmp] |= trans;
>> + b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_TXRINGLO, addrs[0]);
>> + b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_TXRINGHI, addrs[1]);
>> } else {
>> u32 ringbase = (u32) (ring->dmabase);
>>
>> @@ -710,12 +717,15 @@ static int dmacontroller_setup(struct b43_dmaring *ring)
>> if (!parity)
>> value |= B43_DMA64_RXPARITYDISABLE;
>> b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXCTL, value);
>> - b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXRINGLO,
>> - (ringbase & 0xFFFFFFFF));
>> - b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXRINGHI,
>> - ((ringbase >> 32) &
>> - ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
>> - | trans);
>> +
>> + addrs[0] = ringbase & 0xFFFFFFFF;
>> + addrs[1] = ringbase >> 32;
>> + tmp = ring->dev->dma.translation_in_low ? 0 : 1;
>> + addrs[tmp] &= ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK;
>> + addrs[tmp] |= trans;
>> + b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXRINGLO, addrs[0]);
>> + b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXRINGHI, addrs[1]);
>> +
>> b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXINDEX, ring->nr_slots *
>> sizeof(struct b43_dmadesc64));
>> } else {
>> @@ -1052,6 +1062,21 @@ static int b43_dma_set_mask(struct b43_wldev *dev, u64 mask)
>> return 0;
>> }
>
>
> This doesn't look correct to me for several reasons:
>
> In the fill-op the address is not masked correctly with the translation mask.
> In both the fill-op and both ring setups, the actual address extension bits
> are always taken from the address's high word. I guess the extension should
> be the low word bits for devices where we use the low word. That's the only
> thing that would make sense. But hey, it's not that we have sane hardware here.
> So this has to be checked.
Ouch, yeah, you should be right (according to common sense of design).
Unfortunately, on my machine, kernel provides low addresses for DMA purposes:
0x1f310000
0x1f318000
0x1f31c000
Can I ask/hack kernel to offer b43 addresses starting with 0x4... or
0x8... (or 0xc...)?
--
Rafał
��.n��������+%������w��{.n�����{���zW����ܨ}���Ơz�j:+v�����w����ޙ��&�)ߡ�a����z�ޗ���ݢj��w�f
