On 07/16/2013 05:37 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > On 07/16/2013 05:28 PM, Fabien Chouteau wrote: >> On 07/16/2013 04:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote: >>> On 07/10/2013 12:10:02 PM, Fabien Chouteau wrote: >>>> This implementation doesn't include ring priority, TCP/IP Off-Load, QoS. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Fabien Chouteau<chout...@adacore.com> >>> From the code comments I gather this has been tested on VxWorks. Has it >>> been tested on Linux, or anywhere else? >>> >> You're right, as I said in the cover letter, this has only been tested on >> vxWorks. > > Could you please give it a try? IIRC eTSEC support should be in upstream > Linux. >
I don't have time for that. As I said in the cover letter, I submit this patch for those interested in eTSEC, but I won't be able to test/fix it for Linux. > >>>> + /* ring_base = (etsec->regs[RBASEH].value& 0xF)<< 32; */ >>>> + ring_base += etsec->regs[RBASE0 + ring_nbr].value& ~0x7; >>>> + start_bd_addr = bd_addr = etsec->regs[RBPTR0 + ring_nbr].value& >>>> ~0x7; >>> What about RBDBPH (upper bits of physical address)? Likewise for TX. >>> >> I'm only interested in 32bits address spaces, so RBASEH, TBASEH, RBDBPH or >> TBDBPH. > > Why? I thought e500mc and above can access more than 32bits of physical > address space? Yes but this is not emulated by QEMU, right? sizeof (hwaddr) for qemu-system-ppc is 8... > Oh, but they're always DPAA? > I don't understand... Regards, -- Fabien Chouteau