From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44917)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <chouteau@adacore.com>) id 1Uz7uu-0003Cm-6c
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:58 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <chouteau@adacore.com>) id 1Uz7us-0005T4-1q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2013 12:15:55 -0400
Message-ID: <51E571B7.2060308@adacore.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2013 18:15:51 +0200
From: Fabien Chouteau <chouteau@adacore.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1373476202-11277-1-git-send-email-chouteau@adacore.com>
	<1373476202-11277-3-git-send-email-chouteau@adacore.com>
	<20130716020617.GA22542@home.buserror.net>
	<51E5669C.2080602@adacore.com> <51E568A3.4090503@suse.de>
In-Reply-To: <51E568A3.4090503@suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH 2/2] Add Enhanced Three-Speed
 Ethernet Controller (eTSEC)
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Cc: Scott Wood <scottwood@freescale.com>, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 07/16/2013 05:37 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 07/16/2013 05:28 PM, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>> On 07/16/2013 04:06 AM, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On 07/10/2013 12:10:02 PM, Fabien Chouteau wrote:
>>>> This implementation doesn't include ring priority, TCP/IP Off-Load, QoS.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Fabien Chouteau<chouteau@adacore.com>
>>>  From the code comments I gather this has been tested on VxWorks.  Has it
>>> been tested on Linux, or anywhere else?
>>>
>> You're right, as I said in the cover letter, this has only been tested on vxWorks.
>
> Could you please give it a try? IIRC eTSEC support should be in upstream Linux.
>

I don't have time for that. As I said in the cover letter, I submit this
patch for those interested in eTSEC, but I won't be able to test/fix it
for Linux.

>
>>>> +    /* ring_base = (etsec->regs[RBASEH].value&  0xF)<<  32; */
>>>> +    ring_base     += etsec->regs[RBASE0 + ring_nbr].value&  ~0x7;
>>>> +    start_bd_addr  = bd_addr = etsec->regs[RBPTR0 + ring_nbr].value&  ~0x7;
>>> What about RBDBPH (upper bits of physical address)?  Likewise for TX.
>>>
>> I'm only interested in 32bits address spaces, so RBASEH, TBASEH, RBDBPH or TBDBPH.
>
> Why? I thought e500mc and above can access more than 32bits of physical address space? 

Yes but this is not emulated by QEMU, right? sizeof (hwaddr) for
qemu-system-ppc is 8...

> Oh, but they're always DPAA?
> 

I don't understand...

Regards,

-- 
Fabien Chouteau