From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.dev.rtsoft.ru (RT-soft-2.Moscow.itn.ru [80.240.96.70]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1D9767E34 for ; Thu, 4 Aug 2005 00:50:23 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <42F0D9AD.70508@ru.mvista.com> Date: Wed, 03 Aug 2005 18:50:21 +0400 From: Vitaly Bordug MIME-Version: 1.0 To: pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com References: <42EF9022.5050707@ru.mvista.com> <200508030039.16107.pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com> <42F06F62.6050509@ru.mvista.com> <200508031914.10973.pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200508031914.10973.pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------030904080400070103000702" Cc: Kumar Gala , linuxppc-embedded list Subject: Re: [PATCH] cpm_uart: Made non-console uart work List-Id: Linux on Embedded PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------030904080400070103000702 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Well, all the stuff works on 8272 even without this and likewise stuff, >>but don't on 866ADS, where bus_to_virt returns value not equal to where >>we allocated DMA. I didn't dig too deep to track why this happens, since >>if we're using DMA, we should remember addresses upon allocation and >>avoid using bus_to_virt. >> >> > >Well, this is weird cause I've tested my latest patch on 8xx and had no >problems... > > > Since currently I have no ability to reproduce this issue, I'm inclined to drop those hunks. BTW, why those bus_to_virt and virt_to_bus are used? Isn't it more clear to use pure addresses if they are dma-allocated? >I'll try to test your patch, some time later today. > >However, what is important now is to get the fs_enet driver posted. >Please test the latest patch I've send you on a linus tree and report if you >have any problems... > > > I'll try to test it today/tomorrow as time permits... But do you think it can proceed with those mii issues? Though they are almost harmless, the driver will complain that no PHY found but all seem to work fine subsequently. As far as Andy's phy will likely to be in rc14, maybe we can try to push this upstream (as what we have currently for 82xx and especially for 8xx is IMO worse than even incomplete implementation). I'll try to investigate mii troubles, but it's hard to estimate efforts... >Regards > >Pantelis > > > > -- Sincerely, Vitaly --------------030904080400070103000702 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Well, all the stuff works on 8272 even without this and likewise stuff,
but don't on 866ADS, where bus_to_virt returns value not equal to where
we allocated DMA. I didn't dig too deep to track why this happens, since
if we're using DMA, we should remember addresses upon allocation and
avoid using bus_to_virt.


Well, this is weird cause I've tested my latest patch on 8xx and had no 
problems...

Since currently I have no ability to reproduce this issue, I'm inclined to drop those hunks. BTW, why those bus_to_virt and virt_to_bus are used? Isn't it more clear to use pure addresses if they are dma-allocated?

I'll try to test your patch, some time later today.

However, what is important now is to get the fs_enet driver posted.
Please test the latest patch I've send you on a linus tree and report if you
have any problems...

I'll try to test it today/tomorrow as time permits... But do you think it can proceed with those mii issues? Though they are almost harmless, the driver will complain that no PHY found but all seem to work fine subsequently. As far as Andy's phy will likely to be in rc14, maybe we can try to push this upstream (as what we have currently for 82xx and especially for 8xx is IMO worse than even incomplete implementation). I'll try to investigate mii troubles, but it's hard to estimate efforts...

Regards

Pantelis

-- 
Sincerely, 
Vitaly

--------------030904080400070103000702--