Any objections to putting this in soon? Any OKs?
I'd like to move forward with iwm(4) (less fixing bugs, more
adding new features...)
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 04:55:29PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> The iwm(4) driver pre-allocates fw command payload buffers of 320 bytes.
>
> For some firmware
> Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 11:16:27 +0200
> From: Stefan Sperling
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 09:02:27PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Using dma_alloc() here would be wrong. Drivers should use
> > bus_dmamem_alloc().
>
> Thanks, noted.
>
> Do you think iwm should use a buffer allocated with bu
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 09:02:27PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Using dma_alloc() here would be wrong. Drivers should use bus_dmamem_alloc().
Thanks, noted.
Do you think iwm should use a buffer allocated with bus_dmamem_alloc()
here, or stick with the mbuf?
> Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2015 17:45:47 +0200
> From: Stefan Sperling
>
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:31:35AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > huh? Why an mbuf? Is dma_alloc not a better choice?
>
> The mbuf pointer already exists to keep track of packets on the
> otheor Tx queues. I guess that's why iwn
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 12:11:22PM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> oh, ok. it look like the short command path wasn't using an mbuf, but i got
> that impression only from looking at the diff. maybe wrong.
No, it's as bad as you think it is. Short commands stick payload data
into the Tx descriptor, whi
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:31:35AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > huh? Why an mbuf? Is dma_alloc not a better choice?
>
> The mbuf pointer already exists to keep track of packets on the
> otheor Tx queues. I guess that's why iwn (where this came from)
> does it this way.
>
On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 11:31:35AM -0400, Ted Unangst wrote:
> huh? Why an mbuf? Is dma_alloc not a better choice?
The mbuf pointer already exists to keep track of packets on the
otheor Tx queues. I guess that's why iwn (where this came from)
does it this way.
I don't mind changing to dma_alloc.
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> The iwm(4) driver pre-allocates fw command payload buffers of 320 bytes.
>
> For some firmware commands, particularly those used when configuring
> the PHY (iwm_send_phy_db_cmd) and running scans (iwm_mvm_scan_request),
> the payload exceeds 320 bytes. I've seen somewhere
The iwm(4) driver pre-allocates fw command payload buffers of 320 bytes.
For some firmware commands, particularly those used when configuring
the PHY (iwm_send_phy_db_cmd) and running scans (iwm_mvm_scan_request),
the payload exceeds 320 bytes. I've seen somewhere between 2k and 3.5k
being used. P
