From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id f8K1qqL10140 for linux-mips-outgoing; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:52:52 -0700 Received: from mail.ict.ac.cn ([159.226.39.4]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id f8K1qne10137 for ; Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:52:49 -0700 Message-Id: <200109200152.f8K1qne10137@oss.sgi.com> Received: (qmail 11527 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2001 01:47:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO heart1) (159.226.39.162) by 159.226.39.4 with SMTP; 20 Sep 2001 01:47:02 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 9:52:0 +0800 From: Zhang Fuxin To: Jun Sun CC: "linux-mips@oss.sgi.com" Subject: Re: Re: 8259 spurious interrupt (IRQ1,IRQ7,IRQ12..) X-mailer: FoxMail 3.11 Release [cn] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by oss.sgi.com id f8K1qoe10138 Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk hi,Jun Sun£¬ ÔÚ 2001-09-19 12:39:00 you wrote£º > >> >It is typically much easier to modify PCI device BARS so that they do coincide >> >with the same physical address. You can control that by using the correct >> >starting address for PCI MEM space in pci_auto.c resource assignment. >> It seems a good way to solve the ioremap problem and X problem.But virt_to_bus >> & bus_to_virt problem remains? >> > >What is the virt_to_bus() problem? Is the address beyond 512MB (phy addr)? No,I mean problem caused different cpu & pci address space.from pci's view, the main memory is at address 0x80000000-0x90000000 in p6032.But for cpu, they are 0x0-0x10000000.So current virt_to_bus & bus_to_virt won't work. >If PCI mem (BUS) address is identical to phy addr, you should not have problem >unless the address is beyond 512MB. yes:).When i solve the 8259,i will try to make them same. > >BTW, virt_to_bus()/bus_to_virt() are deprecicated. See >Documentation/DMA-mapping.txt. I think the "depreciated" is only for direct usage: they are used in arch/mips/pci-dma.c to implement new interface pci_alloc_consistent. And there are still many driver using them(grep tell me).Am i missing something? > >Jun Regards Zhang Fuxin fxzhang@ict.ac.cn