Re: [PATCH V3] b43: Changes to enable BCM4311 rev 02 with wireless core revision 13
Cédric Caumont wrote: > Hello everyone > > I have just one question! > > I downloaded linux-2.6.24-rc3 > > cd /usr/src/ > ln -sfn linux-2.6.24-rc3 linux > cd linux > patch -p1 < patch_v3.patch > > * > can't find file to patch at input line 112 > Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option? > The text leading up to this was: > -- > |Index: wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/b43/wa.c The patch is for the wireless-2.6 git tree. To use 2.6.24-rc3 from mainline, there are some additional patches needed. I will generate that patch and send it to you privately. Larry ___ Bcm43xx-dev mailing list Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
RE: [PATCH V3] b43: Changes to enable BCM4311 rev 02 with wireless core revision 13
Hello everyone
I have just one question!
I downloaded linux-2.6.24-rc3
cd /usr/src/
ln -sfn linux-2.6.24-rc3 linux
cd linux
patch -p1 < patch_v3.patch
*
can't find file to patch at input line 112
Perhaps you used the wrong -p or --strip option?
The text leading up to this was:
--
|Index: wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/b43/wa.c
|===
|--- wireless-2.6.orig/drivers/net/wireless/b43/wa.c
|+++ wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/b43/wa.c
--
File to patch:
**
Where is the wa.c file? Why there is not in the kernel tree?
> Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:38:11 -0600
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PATCH V3] b43: Changes to enable BCM4311 rev 02 with wireless core
> revision 13
> CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
>
> The BCM94311MCG rev 02 chip has an 802.11 core with revision 13 and
> has not been supported until now. The changes include the following:
>
> (1) Add the 802.11 rev 13 device to the ssb_device_id table to load b43.
> (2) Add PHY revision 9 to the supported list.
> (3) Change the 2-bit routing code for address extensions to 0b10 rather
> than the 0b01 used for the 32-bit case.
> (4) Remove some magic numbers in the DMA setup.
>
> The DMA implementation for this chip supports full 64-bit addressing with
> one exception. Whenever the Descriptor Ring Buffer is in high memory, a
> fatal DMA error occurs. This problem was not present in 2.6.24-rc2 due
> to code to "Bias the placement of kernel pages at lower PFNs". When
> commit 44048d70 reverted that code, the DMA error appeared. As a "fix",
> use the GFP_DMA flag when allocating the buffer for 64-bit DMA. At present,
> this problem is thought to arise from a hardware error.
>
> This patch has been tested on my system, and by Cédric Caumont
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and by Matthieu PATOU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on a BCM4312.
>
> Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> John,
>
> This patch is intended for the everything branch of wireless-2.6.
>
> Larry
> ---
>
> dma.c | 30 ++
> main.c |3 ++-
> wa.c |1 +
> 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> Index: wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
> ===
> --- wireless-2.6.orig/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
> +++ wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
> @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static void op64_fill_descriptor(struct
> addrhi = (((u64) dmaaddr >> 32) & ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK);
> addrext = (((u64) dmaaddr >> 32) & SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
> >> SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_SHIFT;
> - addrhi |= ssb_dma_translation(ring->dev->dev);
> + addrhi |= (ssb_dma_translation(ring->dev->dev) << 1);
> if (slot == ring->nr_slots - 1)
> ctl0 |= B43_DMA64_DCTL0_DTABLEEND;
> if (start)
> @@ -426,9 +426,21 @@ static inline
> static int alloc_ringmemory(struct b43_dmaring *ring)
> {
> struct device *dev = ring->dev->dev->dev;
> + gfp_t flags = GFP_KERNEL;
>
> + /* The specs call for 4K buffers for 30- and 32-bit DMA with 4K
> + * alignment and 8K buffers for 64-bit DMA with 8K alignment. Testing
> + * has shown that 4K is sufficient for the latter as long as the buffer
> + * does not cross an 8K boundary.
> + *
> + * For unknown reasons - possibly a hardware error - the BCM4311 rev
> + * 02, which uses 64-bit DMA, needs the ring buffer in very low memory,
> + * which accounts for the GFP_DMA flag below.
> + */
> + if (ring->dma64)
> + flags = GFP_DMA;
> ring->descbase = dma_alloc_coherent(dev, B43_DMA_RINGMEMSIZE,
> - &(ring->dmabase), GFP_KERNEL);
> + &(ring->dmabase), flags);
> if (!ring->descbase) {
> b43err(ring->dev->wl, "DMA ringmemory allocation failed\n");
> return -ENOMEM;
> @@ -483,7 +495,7 @@ int b43_dmacontroller_rx_reset(struct b4
> return 0;
> }
>
> -/* Reset the RX DMA channel */
> +/* Reset the TX DMA channel */
> int b43_dmacontroller_tx_reset(struct b43_wldev *dev, u16 mmio_base, int
> dma64)
> {
> int i;
> @@ -647,7 +659,7 @@ static i
Re: [PATCH V3] b43: Changes to enable BCM4311 rev 02 with wireless core revision 13
On Monday 26 November 2007 15:38:11 Larry Finger wrote:
> The BCM94311MCG rev 02 chip has an 802.11 core with revision 13 and
> has not been supported until now. The changes include the following:
>
> (1) Add the 802.11 rev 13 device to the ssb_device_id table to load b43.
> (2) Add PHY revision 9 to the supported list.
> (3) Change the 2-bit routing code for address extensions to 0b10 rather
> than the 0b01 used for the 32-bit case.
> (4) Remove some magic numbers in the DMA setup.
>
> The DMA implementation for this chip supports full 64-bit addressing with
> one exception. Whenever the Descriptor Ring Buffer is in high memory, a
> fatal DMA error occurs. This problem was not present in 2.6.24-rc2 due
> to code to "Bias the placement of kernel pages at lower PFNs". When
> commit 44048d70 reverted that code, the DMA error appeared. As a "fix",
> use the GFP_DMA flag when allocating the buffer for 64-bit DMA. At present,
> this problem is thought to arise from a hardware error.
>
> This patch has been tested on my system, and by Cédric Caumont
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and by Matthieu PATOU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on a BCM4312.
>
> Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> static int alloc_ringmemory(struct b43_dmaring *ring)
> {
> struct device *dev = ring->dev->dev->dev;
> + gfp_t flags = GFP_KERNEL;
>
> + /* The specs call for 4K buffers for 30- and 32-bit DMA with 4K
> + * alignment and 8K buffers for 64-bit DMA with 8K alignment. Testing
> + * has shown that 4K is sufficient for the latter as long as the buffer
> + * does not cross an 8K boundary.
> + *
> + * For unknown reasons - possibly a hardware error - the BCM4311 rev
> + * 02, which uses 64-bit DMA, needs the ring buffer in very low memory,
> + * which accounts for the GFP_DMA flag below.
> + */
> + if (ring->dma64)
> + flags = GFP_DMA;
Whoops, didn't notice this before. This needs to be
flags |= GFP_DMA;
> ring->descbase = dma_alloc_coherent(dev, B43_DMA_RINGMEMSIZE,
> - &(ring->dmabase), GFP_KERNEL);
> + &(ring->dmabase), flags);
> if (!ring->descbase) {
> b43err(ring->dev->wl, "DMA ringmemory allocation failed\n");
> return -ENOMEM;
The rest is acked.
--
Greetings Michael.
___
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev
[PATCH V3] b43: Changes to enable BCM4311 rev 02 with wireless core revision 13
The BCM94311MCG rev 02 chip has an 802.11 core with revision 13 and
has not been supported until now. The changes include the following:
(1) Add the 802.11 rev 13 device to the ssb_device_id table to load b43.
(2) Add PHY revision 9 to the supported list.
(3) Change the 2-bit routing code for address extensions to 0b10 rather
than the 0b01 used for the 32-bit case.
(4) Remove some magic numbers in the DMA setup.
The DMA implementation for this chip supports full 64-bit addressing with
one exception. Whenever the Descriptor Ring Buffer is in high memory, a
fatal DMA error occurs. This problem was not present in 2.6.24-rc2 due
to code to "Bias the placement of kernel pages at lower PFNs". When
commit 44048d70 reverted that code, the DMA error appeared. As a "fix",
use the GFP_DMA flag when allocating the buffer for 64-bit DMA. At present,
this problem is thought to arise from a hardware error.
This patch has been tested on my system, and by Cédric Caumont
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and by Matthieu PATOU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on a BCM4312.
Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
John,
This patch is intended for the everything branch of wireless-2.6.
Larry
---
dma.c | 30 ++
main.c |3 ++-
wa.c |1 +
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Index: wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
===
--- wireless-2.6.orig/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
+++ wireless-2.6/drivers/net/wireless/b43/dma.c
@@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static void op64_fill_descriptor(struct
addrhi = (((u64) dmaaddr >> 32) & ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK);
addrext = (((u64) dmaaddr >> 32) & SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
>> SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_SHIFT;
- addrhi |= ssb_dma_translation(ring->dev->dev);
+ addrhi |= (ssb_dma_translation(ring->dev->dev) << 1);
if (slot == ring->nr_slots - 1)
ctl0 |= B43_DMA64_DCTL0_DTABLEEND;
if (start)
@@ -426,9 +426,21 @@ static inline
static int alloc_ringmemory(struct b43_dmaring *ring)
{
struct device *dev = ring->dev->dev->dev;
+ gfp_t flags = GFP_KERNEL;
+ /* The specs call for 4K buffers for 30- and 32-bit DMA with 4K
+* alignment and 8K buffers for 64-bit DMA with 8K alignment. Testing
+* has shown that 4K is sufficient for the latter as long as the buffer
+* does not cross an 8K boundary.
+*
+* For unknown reasons - possibly a hardware error - the BCM4311 rev
+* 02, which uses 64-bit DMA, needs the ring buffer in very low memory,
+* which accounts for the GFP_DMA flag below.
+*/
+ if (ring->dma64)
+ flags = GFP_DMA;
ring->descbase = dma_alloc_coherent(dev, B43_DMA_RINGMEMSIZE,
- &(ring->dmabase), GFP_KERNEL);
+ &(ring->dmabase), flags);
if (!ring->descbase) {
b43err(ring->dev->wl, "DMA ringmemory allocation failed\n");
return -ENOMEM;
@@ -483,7 +495,7 @@ int b43_dmacontroller_rx_reset(struct b4
return 0;
}
-/* Reset the RX DMA channel */
+/* Reset the TX DMA channel */
int b43_dmacontroller_tx_reset(struct b43_wldev *dev, u16 mmio_base, int dma64)
{
int i;
@@ -647,7 +659,7 @@ static int dmacontroller_setup(struct b4
b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_TXRINGHI,
((ringbase >> 32) &
~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
- | trans);
+ | (trans << 1));
} else {
u32 ringbase = (u32) (ring->dmabase);
@@ -680,8 +692,9 @@ static int dmacontroller_setup(struct b4
b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXRINGHI,
((ringbase >> 32) &
~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
- | trans);
- b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXINDEX, 200);
+ | (trans << 1));
+ b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA64_RXINDEX, ring->nr_slots *
+ sizeof(struct b43_dmadesc64));
} else {
u32 ringbase = (u32) (ring->dmabase);
@@ -695,11 +708,12 @@ static int dmacontroller_setup(struct b4
b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA32_RXRING,
(ringbase & ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
| trans);
- b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA32_RXINDEX, 200);
+ b43_dma_write(ring, B43_DMA32_RXINDEX, ring->nr_slots *
+ sizeof(struct b43_dmadesc32));
}
}
- out:
+out:
return err;
}
Index:
