From: John Marvin <jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com>
To: parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com
Subject: Re: [parisc-linux] Virtual mapping of IO cards
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 07:37:52 -0700 (MST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200002171437.HAA08803@udlkern.fc.hp.com> (raw)
> >
> > Drivers for memory mapped register only cards, i.e. cards without any
> > type of onboard memory (i.e. framebuffers, script memory, etc.) are
> > not very likely to ever run into a bug of this type, since register
> pointers are usually set up once and never changed.
>
> Agreed. "not very likely" and "never" are not the same. When bringing
> up new drivers, it is in fact more likely than for a mostly working
> driver. So while I agree with the statement, I don't agree with the
> conclusion.
I guess I was mostly talking from a released version perspective, not a
development perspective. During development you would actually get even
more debug information if you just put driver specific range checking into
a private version of the read/write macro's (i.e. you could get source
code line numbers, etc.)
I really am not trying to argue strongly against mapping the cards. I
see only two performance issues:
1) PCXL2 processors require that the U bit be set for IO mappings.
As far as I can tell, this is the only processor that requires this.
The TLB miss handlers don't currently support this. We would have
to add support for it in the D miss handler. Since the U bit is
in an inconvenient location it would require a separate test and
deposit, making all code pay the penalty of the additional
instructions. Perhaps we would eventually want to add the U bit
support anyway, but not all processors support it (the
PCXS and PCXT processors do not support it).
2) I really would like to avoid mapping the framebuffer into
the kernel address space. Perhaps maybe that is not really an
issue, since after boot the user will bring up X windows and
the kernel mapping won't actually be actively used (I'm assuming
that graphics on Linux maps the framebuffer into the user address
space, but I haven't checked to be sure).
So, if you want to map the cards, I'm not going to oppose that.
John
next reply other threads:[~2000-02-17 15:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-02-17 14:37 John Marvin [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2000-02-16 15:25 [parisc-linux] Virtual mapping of IO cards John Marvin
2000-02-16 18:38 ` Grant Grundler
2000-02-17 18:49 ` Frank Rowand
2000-02-16 21:45 ` Frank Rowand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200002171437.HAA08803@udlkern.fc.hp.com \
--to=jsm@udlkern.fc.hp.com \
--cc=parisc-linux@thepuffingroup.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox