On Sun, Oct 02, 2011 at 01:45:28PM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 02:34:58PM +1000, David Gibson wrote: > > From: Eduard - Gabriel Munteanu <eduard.munte...@linux360.ro> > > @@ -744,21 +713,22 @@ static void dump_statistics(EEPRO100State * s) > > * values which really matter. > > * Number of data should check configuration!!! > > */ > > - cpu_physical_memory_write(s->statsaddr, &s->statistics, s->stats_size); > > - e100_stl_le_phys(s->statsaddr + 0, s->statistics.tx_good_frames); > > - e100_stl_le_phys(s->statsaddr + 36, s->statistics.rx_good_frames); > > - e100_stl_le_phys(s->statsaddr + 48, s->statistics.rx_resource_errors); > > - e100_stl_le_phys(s->statsaddr + 60, > > s->statistics.rx_short_frame_errors); > > + pci_dma_write(&s->dev, s->statsaddr, > > + (uint8_t *) & s->statistics, s->stats_size); > > + stl_pci_dma(&s->dev, s->statsaddr + 0, s->statistics.tx_good_frames); > > + stl_pci_dma(&s->dev, s->statsaddr + 36, s->statistics.rx_good_frames); > > + stl_pci_dma(&s->dev, s->statsaddr + 48, > > s->statistics.rx_resource_errors); > > + stl_pci_dma(&s->dev, s->statsaddr + 60, > > s->statistics.rx_short_frame_errors); > > At least old stl macros assumed an aligned address. > Not sure it's still the case but for e100 address might > not be aligned I think.
The new macros, being implemented in terms of cpu_physical_memory_rw() with small lengths, do not require aligned addresses. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson