Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> 1.) The ieee1394 subsystem is known to work on x86_64 with more than 4
> GB RAM,
It's actually ~3+GB where memory above the 4GB barrier starts appearing.
In some extreme cases even for 2+GB.
> so I gather that architecture code already sets a pr
Stefan Richter wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>> Oh and, don't do the set_dma_mask() in sbp2, it has nothing to do there.
>> It should be in the ohci1394 driver.
>
> That's not quite right. OHCI-1394 implementations can go beyond 4GB bus
> address space. (Although I don't know if there a
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 16:25 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
>>> Anyway. For now I will simply go with what 2.6.23-rc has and what
>>> 2.6.21 had: No dma_set_mask anywhere in the 1394 subsystem. We can
>>> revisit this whenever an actual need arises.
>> Not sure this
Robert Hancock wrote:
> I would agree, though, that sbp2 isn't really the place for setting
> this, since the DMA mask is presently a property of the device, not of
> the user..
The mask that sbp2 set was because sbp2 has (in theory, not yet in
practice) a _narrower requirement on address ranges t
Robert Hancock wrote:
> Stefan Richter wrote:
>> So that's the story why that dma_set_mask went into sbp2: Sbp2 wants
>> mappings in a _subset_ of the OHCI-1394 controllers DMA range.
>>
>> Anyway. For now I will simply go with what 2.6.23-rc has and what
>> 2.6.21 had: No dma_set_mask anywhere
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 16:25 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote:
> > Anyway. For now I will simply go with what 2.6.23-rc has and what
> > 2.6.21 had: No dma_set_mask anywhere in the 1394 subsystem. We can
> > revisit this whenever an actual need arises.
>
> Not sure this is a very good idea. This seem
On Tue, 2007-08-07 at 00:22 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > Oh and, don't do the set_dma_mask() in sbp2, it has nothing to do there.
> > It should be in the ohci1394 driver.
>
> That's not quite right. OHCI-1394 implementations can go beyond 4GB bus
> address spac
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> Oh and, don't do the set_dma_mask() in sbp2, it has nothing to do there.
> It should be in the ohci1394 driver.
That's not quite right. OHCI-1394 implementations can go beyond 4GB bus
address space. (Although I don't know if there are such implementations
availabl
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 15:51 +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> > BTW. Any reason why you don't set the DMA mask in the ohci driver rather
> > than the sbp2 one ?
>
> I used this patch, and the attached CD was found.
> What dma mask should be used in ohci
On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 13:58 +0200, Olaf Hering wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 05, Stefan Richter wrote:
>
> > Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> > >>> If setting 32-bit DMA mask fails on ppc64, that sounds like a problem
> > >>> with the DMA implementation on that architecture. There are enough cards
> > >>> o
On Mon, Aug 06, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> BTW. Any reason why you don't set the DMA mask in the ohci driver rather
> than the sbp2 one ?
I used this patch, and the attached CD was found.
What dma mask should be used in ohci_probe()?
---
drivers/ieee1394/ohci1394.c |2 ++
driver
On Sun, Aug 05, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>> If setting 32-bit DMA mask fails on ppc64, that sounds like a problem
> >>> with the DMA implementation on that architecture. There are enough cards
> >>> out there that only support 32-bit DMA that this really needs to wo
On Sun, 2007-08-05 at 09:54 +0200, Stefan Richter wrote:
> Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >>> If setting 32-bit DMA mask fails on ppc64, that sounds like a problem
> >>> with the DMA implementation on that architecture. There are enough cards
> >>> out there that only support 32-bit DMA that this
Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>>> If setting 32-bit DMA mask fails on ppc64, that sounds like a problem
>>> with the DMA implementation on that architecture. There are enough cards
>>> out there that only support 32-bit DMA that this really needs to work..
>> Yes, could the PPC folks please have a
> > If setting 32-bit DMA mask fails on ppc64, that sounds like a problem
> > with the DMA implementation on that architecture. There are enough cards
> > out there that only support 32-bit DMA that this really needs to work..
>
> Yes, could the PPC folks please have a look at it? Thanks.
Smell
(Adding Cc: linuxppc-dev, olh)
Robert Hancock wrote:
> Stefan Richter wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 20:30:36 +0200 (CEST)
>> From: Stefan Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Subject: ieee1394: revert "sbp2: enforce 32bit DMA mapping"
>>
>> Revert commit 0555659d63c285ceb7ead3115532e1b71b0f27a7 from 2
16 matches
Mail list logo