2.5.4 sound module problem

2.5.4 sound module problem

[Albert Cranford]

Not sure if this was the same message I received. but here
is the patch I used to get around my sound problem in
2.5.4.
Linus, please apply to 2.5.5 pre1
Later,
Albert
--- linux/drivers/sound/dmabuf.c.orig   Tue Feb 12 10:12:59 2002
+++ linux/drivers/sound/dmabuf.c        Tue Feb 12 10:15:06 2002
@@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
                }
        }
        dmap->raw_buf = start_addr;
-       dmap->raw_buf_phys = virt_to_bus(start_addr);
+       dmap->raw_buf_phys = isa_virt_to_bus(start_addr);
 
        for (page = virt_to_page(start_addr); page <= virt_to_page(end_addr); page++)
                mem_map_reserve(page);

-- 
Albert Cranford Deerfield Beach FL USA
ac9410@bellsouth.net

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Alan]

On Tuesday 12 February 2002 19:51, Albert Cranford wrote:
> Not sure if this was the same message I received. but here
> is the patch I used to get around my sound problem in
> 2.5.4.

Are you sure this is correct?  include/asm/io.h seems to indicate that i/o 
addresses for PCI may not map correctly.  The sound card I am using is PCI, 
not ISA.

Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt says that virt_to_bus is completly depreciated 
and nothing should be using it.  Well, grepping the kernel source shows that 
quite a bit still uses it.

What it looks like, on first glance, is that virt_to_bus  was changed for pci 
devices to give this error message.  (Since that symbol goes nowhere.)  That 
effects a number of things, not just sound. (A whole bunch of cardbus drivers 
I would guess...)

When was this change made? It appears as if they missed a few bits.

Comment: 2.5.4 has been more than a bit rough.  Rarely do i see more than one 
patch needed just to get it to compile. Not trying to be bitchy about it. 
Just a wee bit frustrated...

> Linus, please apply to 2.5.5 pre1
> Later,
> Albert
> --- linux/drivers/sound/dmabuf.c.orig   Tue Feb 12 10:12:59 2002
> +++ linux/drivers/sound/dmabuf.c        Tue Feb 12 10:15:06 2002
> @@ -113,7 +113,7 @@
>                 }
>         }
>         dmap->raw_buf = start_addr;
> -       dmap->raw_buf_phys = virt_to_bus(start_addr);
> +       dmap->raw_buf_phys = isa_virt_to_bus(start_addr);
>
>         for (page = virt_to_page(start_addr); page <=
> virt_to_page(end_addr); page++) mem_map_reserve(page);

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[David S. Miller]

   From: Albert Cranford <ac9410@bellsouth.net>
   Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 22:51:35 -0500

   Not sure if this was the same message I received. but here
   is the patch I used to get around my sound problem in
   2.5.4.
   Linus, please apply to 2.5.5 pre1

Umm, I don't it is safe to assume that only ISA sound drivers end up
making use of this code.  I would like you to prove that before
submitting this change.

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Alan Cox]

> Umm, I don't it is safe to assume that only ISA sound drivers end up
> making use of this code.  I would like you to prove that before
> submitting this change.

There are PCI drivers using the old sound code. Whether it matters is a 
more complicated question as these devices use ISA DMA emulation or their
own pseudo DMA functionality.

Alan

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[David S. Miller]

   From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
   Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:26:32 +0000 (GMT)
   
   There are PCI drivers using the old sound code. Whether it matters is a 
   more complicated question as these devices use ISA DMA emulation or their
   own pseudo DMA functionality.
   
The sound layer PCI DMA stuff like a nice project for some kernel
janitors :-))

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Gérard Roudier]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, David S. Miller wrote:

>    From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
>    Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:26:32 +0000 (GMT)
>
>    There are PCI drivers using the old sound code. Whether it matters is a
>    more complicated question as these devices use ISA DMA emulation or their
>    own pseudo DMA functionality.
>
> The sound layer PCI DMA stuff like a nice project for some kernel
> janitors :-))

Not worth, IMO.

Machines that give us fun support the legacy virt_to_bus() semantic.
Those that require the PCI DMA abstraction are so boring than adding sound
will probably not improve user pleasure significantly.

:-))     (this smiley is just to prevent from too much flaming ;-)

  Gérard.

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Alan Cox]

>    There are PCI drivers using the old sound code. Whether it matters is a 
>    more complicated question as these devices use ISA DMA emulation or their
>    own pseudo DMA functionality.
>    
> The sound layer PCI DMA stuff like a nice project for some kernel
> janitors :-))

Waste of effort. ALSA will replace the OSS code anyway

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Alan]

On Wednesday 13 February 2002 02:24, Alan Cox wrote:
> >    There are PCI drivers using the old sound code. Whether it matters is
> > a more complicated question as these devices use ISA DMA emulation or
> > their own pseudo DMA functionality.
> >
> > The sound layer PCI DMA stuff like a nice project for some kernel
> > janitors :-))
>
> Waste of effort. ALSA will replace the OSS code anyway

When I looked at the code, it looked like a lot more than just the sound code 
needed to be fixed.  I will look at the next patch and see what is left.

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> Waste of effort. ALSA will replace the OSS code anyway

In fact, in my tree it right now has replaced it. I'll make a pre-patch
and try to get the BK tree pushed out.

		Linus

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Pete Zaitcev]

> There are PCI drivers using the old sound code. Whether it matters is a 
> more complicated question as these devices use ISA DMA emulation or their
> own pseudo DMA functionality.
> 
> Alan

Sometimes it's only a configuration mistake. Not that it mattered,
since "The ALSA is coming! The ALSA is coming!" can be heard from
our forrestals.

--- linux-2.5.4/drivers/sound/Config.in	Sun Feb 10 17:50:10 2002
+++ linux-2.5.4-p3/drivers/sound/Config.in	Mon Feb 11 10:12:51 2002
@@ -164,7 +164,7 @@
    dep_tristate '    Yamaha FM synthesizer (YM3812/OPL-3) support' CONFIG_SOUND_YM3812 $CONFIG_SOUND_OSS
    dep_tristate '    Yamaha OPL3-SA1 audio controller' CONFIG_SOUND_OPL3SA1 $CONFIG_SOUND_OSS
    dep_tristate '    Yamaha OPL3-SA2 and SA3 based PnP cards' CONFIG_SOUND_OPL3SA2 $CONFIG_SOUND_OSS
-   dep_tristate '    Yamaha YMF7xx PCI audio (native mode)' CONFIG_SOUND_YMFPCI $CONFIG_SOUND_OSS $CONFIG_PCI
+   dep_tristate '    Yamaha YMF7xx PCI audio (native mode)' CONFIG_SOUND_YMFPCI $CONFIG_PCI
    dep_mbool '      Yamaha PCI legacy ports support' CONFIG_SOUND_YMFPCI_LEGACY $CONFIG_SOUND_YMFPCI
    dep_tristate '    6850 UART support' CONFIG_SOUND_UART6850 $CONFIG_SOUND_OSS   

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[John Weber]

Alan wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2002 19:51, Albert Cranford wrote:
> 
>>Not sure if this was the same message I received. but here
>>is the patch I used to get around my sound problem in
>>2.5.4.
>>
> 
> Are you sure this is correct?  include/asm/io.h seems to indicate that i/o 
> addresses for PCI may not map correctly.  The sound card I am using is PCI, 
> not ISA.

You should not use isa_virt_to_bus.  IIRC someone on this list worried 
about this exact thing happening.


> Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt says that virt_to_bus is completly depreciated 
> and nothing should be using it.  Well, grepping the kernel source shows that 
> quite a bit still uses it.

This is on the kernel janitor TODO, and we (janitors) will be tackling 
this shortly.  But your instinct is right, virt_to_bus shouldn't be 
everywhere.

> What it looks like, on first glance, is that virt_to_bus  was changed for pci 
> devices to give this error message.  (Since that symbol goes nowhere.)  That 
> effects a number of things, not just sound. (A whole bunch of cardbus drivers 
> I would guess...)

This is correct.  It has been a policy to use pci_alloc_consistent 
instead of kmalloc/getfreepages and virt_to_bus, 2.5 is enforcing it now.

It is boring work to change this in many drivers, but I don't know any 
better so I think it quite fun to go in and help :).  I'll start sending 
patches to the relevant maintainers shortly.

By the way, anyone know who the maintainer is for the persistent DMA 
buffer code?

-- 
(o- j o h n   e   w e b e r
//\  http://www.linuxhq.com/people/weber/
v_/_ john.weber@linuxhq.com

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Alan]

On Tuesday 12 February 2002 21:03, John Weber wrote:
> Alan wrote:
> > On Tuesday 12 February 2002 19:51, Albert Cranford wrote:
> >>Not sure if this was the same message I received. but here
> >>is the patch I used to get around my sound problem in
> >>2.5.4.
> >
> > Are you sure this is correct?  include/asm/io.h seems to indicate that
> > i/o addresses for PCI may not map correctly.  The sound card I am using
> > is PCI, not ISA.
>
> You should not use isa_virt_to_bus.  IIRC someone on this list worried
> about this exact thing happening.

Glad I checked before adding the patch... ]:>

> > Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt says that virt_to_bus is completly
> > depreciated and nothing should be using it.  Well, grepping the kernel
> > source shows that quite a bit still uses it.
>
> This is on the kernel janitor TODO, and we (janitors) will be tackling
> this shortly.  But your instinct is right, virt_to_bus shouldn't be
> everywhere.

IMHO 2.5.4 is pretty broken until that gets fixed.  the list is pretty long 
as well.

> > What it looks like, on first glance, is that virt_to_bus  was changed for
> > pci devices to give this error message.  (Since that symbol goes
> > nowhere.)  That effects a number of things, not just sound. (A whole
> > bunch of cardbus drivers I would guess...)
>
> This is correct.  It has been a policy to use pci_alloc_consistent
> instead of kmalloc/getfreepages and virt_to_bus, 2.5 is enforcing it now.

By breaking sound (in dmabuf and sound modules), cardbus (lots of places), 
and who knows what else.

"grep -r virt_to_bus | less" shows jut how bad it is going to be...

> It is boring work to change this in many drivers, but I don't know any
> better so I think it quite fun to go in and help :).  I'll start sending
> patches to the relevant maintainers shortly.

Thanks.

It just makes me wonder if anyone actually compiled this and ran it before it 
was released.

Back to 2.4.x land for a while i guess... (At least on this machine.)

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Miles Lane]

On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 21:18, Alan wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 February 2002 21:03, John Weber wrote:

<snip>

> > This is correct.  It has been a policy to use pci_alloc_consistent
> > instead of kmalloc/getfreepages and virt_to_bus, 2.5 is enforcing it now.
> 
> By breaking sound (in dmabuf and sound modules), cardbus (lots of places), 
> and who knows what else.
> 
> "grep -r virt_to_bus | less" shows jut how bad it is going to be...

I checked, there are 1069 occurrences.

	Miles

Re: 2.5.4 sound module problem

[Alan Cox]

> > This is correct.  It has been a policy to use pci_alloc_consistent
> > instead of kmalloc/getfreepages and virt_to_bus, 2.5 is enforcing it now.
> 
> By breaking sound (in dmabuf and sound modules), cardbus (lots of places), 
> and who knows what else.

It needed breaking. In order to get the drivers portable they need to be
using the DMA API. It shouldn't take too long for the common drivers to
get converted. For much of the sound layer it doesnt matter since the
ALSA code will replace a lot of the older sound stuff.

Alan

2.5.4 sound module problem

[Alan]

I checked the last few days of the kernel list, but did not find this 
problem. (Found the other compile problem (in more ways than one) though.)

Everything seems to compile correctly, but I get the following error message 
on "make modules_install".

depmod: *** Unresolved symbols in 
/lib/modules/2.5.4/kernel/drivers/sound/sound.o
depmod: 	virt_to_bus_not_defined_use_pci_map

Something is not right.  Had not seen that message though...

I get the same error if I build modules for PCMCIA drivers for aerotech cards 
and probably more.

Anyone have a quick idea what is wrong?  I can provide more info if this is 
new. (Which i doubt...)