From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from spoolo4.tiscali.be (spoolo4.tiscali.be [62.235.13.170]) by dsl2.external.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A2764832 for ; Sun, 18 Apr 2004 11:16:39 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4082B7F4.8000508@tiscali.be> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:16:36 +0000 From: Joel Soete MIME-Version: 1.0 To: James Bottomley Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Re: kernel>=2.6.4-rc3 hung or panic on C1[18]0 [was: 2.6.5-rc2-pa2 boot panic on c110 :(] References: <407DA495.1090009@tiscali.be> <40711E5500006381@ocpmta2.freegates.net> <26419.193.161.152.244.1082114391.squirrel@www.puszczka.com> <4081731B.7070006@tiscali.be> <32875.127.0.0.1.1082234959.squirrel@www.puszczka.com> <4081A280.8050108@tiscali.be> <4081B70F.6060003@tiscali.be> <40829331.6040905@tiscali.be> <1082306164.2195.27.camel@mulgrave> In-Reply-To: <1082306164.2195.27.camel@mulgrave> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Cc: PARISC list , Andy Walker List-Id: parisc-linux developers list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , James Bottomley wrote: > On Sun, 2004-04-18 at 09:39, Joel Soete wrote: > >>I presume that wrong stuff come from the ccio_fill_pdir() or ccio_coalesce_chunks() merge with lba one? >>But I don't have yet more accurate idea on what went wrong here (difference between functions are important). >> >>(would it help to rebuild this same kernel tree with gcc-3.0 32bit would help? right now is was build with latest gcc-3.3.3.) >> >>Grant, James any idea? > > > Well, actually, the problem can't be in the code you cite, otherwise my > raven wouldn't work either and it's been fine. > > However, it's entirely possible that the effects of the patch are > causing issues in the ncr driver. What it does is correctly coalesce > segments in the iommu. Before this, the parisc iommus rarely did > coalescing, so our SG lists were usually lots of page sized entities. > Now the individual entries can be up to 256k long. > > I suspect, since your C110 has a 53c720 (using the ncr driver) and my > C360 has a 53c875 (using sym_2) that the ncr driver can't cope with sg > lists whose entries are so long. > Yes that's also the main difference I noticed between c110 and c360. > The problems are probably due to some sort of fixed length assumption on > sg elements in the ncr driver. > Ok, I now better understand inter-action between ccio and ncr drivers and I check in more detail this code. Thanks a lot for all, Joel