[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: freebsd-ppc
Subject: Re: Call for testing and review, busdma changes
From: Ian Lepore <freebsd () damnhippie ! dyndns ! org>
Date: 2012-12-30 18:28:37
Message-ID: 1356892117.54953.37.camel () revolution ! hippie ! lan
[Download RAW message or body]
On Sun, 2012-12-30 at 11:23 -0700, Scott Long wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2012, at 11:21 AM, Ian Lepore <freebsd@damnhippie.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2012-12-24 at 22:13 -0500, Scott Long wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Still unresolved is what to do about the remaining cases -- attempts to
> >>>>> do dma in arbitrary buffers not obtained from bus_dmamem_alloc() which
> >>>>> are not aligned and padded appropriately. There was some discussion a
> >>>>> while back, but no clear resolution. I decided not to get bogged down
> >>>>> by that fact and to fix the mbuf and allocated-buffer situations that we
> >>>>> know how to deal with for now.
> >>>>
> >>
> >> Why would these allocations not be handled as normal dynamic buffers
> >> would with bus_dmamap_load()?
> >>
> >> Scott
> >
> > That's my point -- for "normal dynamic buffers" (that is, they weren't
> > obtained from bus_dmamem_alloc() and they aren't mbufs) which can have
> > arbitrary alignment and padding in relation to cache line boundaries --
> > we don't handle them correctly now unless they're accidentally already
> > aligned and sized to the right boundaries. What's unresolved is how to
> > handle them correctly if they're not aligned/padded, that is, what to do
> > about them that avoids needing a partial cacheline flush at sync time.
> >
>
> Alignment is already handled.
>
> Scott
>
No it's not.
-- Ian
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ppc@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ppc
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ppc-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic