Stealth port problems

Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

Hi!  I have troubles with my stealth port on a G3-blue. When it runs at 115200
ifconfig
shows a lot of overruns. At 57600 it works fine, but it's slow :-((

Does any of you own that serial port ?  Suggestions ??

Bye.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

>
>Hi!  I have troubles with my stealth port on a G3-blue. When it runs at
115200
>ifconfig
>shows a lot of overruns. At 57600 it works fine, but it's slow :-((
>
>Does any of you own that serial port ?  Suggestions ??

Which kernel ? With the DMA serial driver, it should work better than
that... The Stealth hardware is probaly not responsible, it's just a line
driver plugged instead of the modem, the actual zilog SCC is part of
Apple's ASIC.

Ben.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

>>Hi!  I have troubles with my stealth port on a G3-blue. When it runs at
> 115200
>>ifconfig
>>shows a lot of overruns. At 57600 it works fine, but it's slow :-((
>>
>>Does any of you own that serial port ?  Suggestions ??
>
> Which kernel ?

2.2.16p (usb patches)

> With the DMA serial driver, it should work better than
> that... The Stealth hardware is probaly not responsible, it's just a line
> driver plugged instead of the modem, the actual zilog SCC is part of
> Apple's ASIC.

I just discovered a strange thing... It seems to work fine in console, but when
X is running it doesn't.  (??)


Bye.
    Giuliano Pochini ->)|(<- Shiny Corporation {AS6665} ->)|(<-


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
>
> >
> >Hi!  I have troubles with my stealth port on a G3-blue. When it runs at
> 115200
> >ifconfig
> >shows a lot of overruns. At 57600 it works fine, but it's slow :-((
> >
> >Does any of you own that serial port ?  Suggestions ??
>
> Which kernel ? With the DMA serial driver, it should work better than
> that... The Stealth hardware is probaly not responsible, it's just a line
> driver plugged instead of the modem, the actual zilog SCC is part of
> Apple's ASIC.

Now I run XF4 and the problem is even worse. I get underruns at 38400
:-(((((((((((((

What can I do ?  And why X affects the serial port ??

Bye.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Iain Sandoe]

Sun, Jul 30, 2000,   Giuliano Pochini wrote:
> Giuliano Pochini wrote:
>>
>> > >Hi!  I have troubles with my stealth port on a G3-blue. When it runs at
>> > 115200
>> > >ifconfig
>> > >shows a lot of overruns. At 57600 it works fine, but it's slow :-((
>
> The problem is definitely X.  I made a lot of tests: with dma and non-dma
> serial driver, X accelerated, non accelerated, X bare.bone (started with
> xinit). The problem is X. When X is running the serial ports looses packets
> :-((
> Am I the only one who is having this problem ???  Why does X cause overruns ??

If you can try 2.2.17pre10ben2 or pre13ben2 (linuxcare linux-pmac-benh) then
you can apply the IRQ latency test and see if it is that which is blocking
you.  Scan the dev list for "[ANN} IRQ".

It is possible (there was a discussion in the ANN thread about fb IRQ
blocks) - X may aggravate this.

I have seen 2ms of IRQ blocking on the Lombard (using IDE CDROM) and around
450-750 us of IRQ blocking on my other machines (SCSI). [when heavily
loaded].

The RX buffer in an 85230 (which is actually the chip - IIRC - an enhanced
8530) is 8 characters deep - so any more that about 700 us IRQ block will
cause a drop out at 115200 continuous...

So it looks like music might not be the only pressure to tune the IRQ
latencies :-)

Note that an x86 kernel guru said on the lad list "a well tuned kernel
should not exhibit more than about 60 us worst-case IRQ block"

we have a ways to go to get to that.

Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Takashi Oe]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Giuliano Pochini wrote:

> > >Hi!  I have troubles with my stealth port on a G3-blue. When it runs at
> > 115200
> > >ifconfig
> > >shows a lot of overruns. At 57600 it works fine, but it's slow :-((
> > >
> > >Does any of you own that serial port ?  Suggestions ??
> >
> > Which kernel ? With the DMA serial driver, it should work better than
> > that... The Stealth hardware is probaly not responsible, it's just a line
> > driver plugged instead of the modem, the actual zilog SCC is part of
> > Apple's ASIC.
>
>
> I've just tried the old non-dma code. Same problem :-(((

If so, could you check if you have DMA enabled with dma code?

	$ cat /proc/interrupts
           CPU0
	  2:          0   PMAC-PIC      MACE-txdma
	  3:          0   PMAC-PIC      MACE-rxdma
	  4:          0   PMAC-PIC      SCC-txdma
	  5:          0   PMAC-PIC      SCC-rxdma
	  6:          0   PMAC-PIC      SCC-txdma
	  7:      15593   PMAC-PIC      SCC-rxdma
	  8:         17   PMAC-PIC      AWACS out
	 12:          7   PMAC-PIC      53C94
	 13:    3411091   PMAC-PIC      MESH
	 14:          0   PMAC-PIC      MACE
	 15:          0   PMAC-PIC      SCC
	 16:     594667   PMAC-PIC      SCC
	 17:          0   PMAC-PIC      AWACS
	 18:     991629   PMAC-PIC      VIA
	 19:          0   PMAC-PIC      SWIM3
	 25:          0   PMAC-PIC      usb-ohci, ohci-usb
	BAD:          0
	$

If you don't see "SCC-rxdma", then it's not enabled.  The reason I ask is
that a G3-blue's SCC device node has more than three addresses if I
remember correctly, and, if that's the case, the dma code won't be enabled
due to the following sniplet in chan_init() of macserial.c:

#if !defined(CONFIG_KGDB) && defined(SUPPORT_SERIAL_DMA)
	if (ch->n_addrs == 3 && ch->n_intrs == 3)
		zss->has_dma = 1;
#endif

It can be fixed if the above is changed to something like:

#if !defined(CONFIG_KGDB) && defined(SUPPORT_SERIAL_DMA)
	if (ch->n_addrs >= 3 && ch->n_intrs == 3)
		zss->has_dma = 1;
#endif

I think the last two addresses correspond to DMA addresses for all
SCC capable machines so far, so this change should be ok.


Takashi Oe


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Takashi Oe]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Iain Sandoe wrote:

[...]
> The RX buffer in an 85230 (which is actually the chip - IIRC - an enhanced
> 8530) is 8 characters deep

Ok, this is a news to me.  I'm certain that SCC on oldworld pmacs is
85C30.  When did the change to 85230 occur?  If I remember correctly,
some DMA setup codes in macserial.c need to know about it if it's dealing
with 85230 rather than 85C30.

>                            - so any more that about 700 us IRQ block will
> cause a drop out at 115200 continuous...

With DMA, this is a non-issue as far as serial driver is concerned.


Takashi Oe


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

> >Hi!  I have troubles with my stealth port on a G3-blue. When it runs at
> 115200
> >ifconfig
> >shows a lot of overruns. At 57600 it works fine, but it's slow :-((
> >
> >Does any of you own that serial port ?  Suggestions ??
>
> Which kernel ? With the DMA serial driver, it should work better than
> that... The Stealth hardware is probaly not responsible, it's just a line
> driver plugged instead of the modem, the actual zilog SCC is part of
> Apple's ASIC.


I've just tried the old non-dma code. Same problem :-(((
All works fine with Mac OS.


Bye.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Iain Sandoe]

On  Sun, Jul 30, 2000, Takashi Oe wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
> [...]
>> The RX buffer in an 85230 (which is actually the chip - IIRC - an enhanced
>> 8530) is 8 characters deep
>
> Ok, this is a news to me.  I'm certain that SCC on oldworld pmacs is
> 85C30.  When did the change to 85230 occur?  If I remember correctly,
> some DMA setup codes in macserial.c need to know about it if it's dealing
> with 85230 rather than 85C30.

OK - I don't know for certain - but the code refers to an "ESCC" which is
the name of the 85230 - the 8530 should just be called "SCC".


>>                            - so any more that about 700 us IRQ block will
>> cause a drop out at 115200 continuous...
>
> With DMA, this is a non-issue as far as serial driver is concerned.

This is, of course, true - unless something blocks for long enough to
prevent the IRQ that indicates end-of-dma transfer (assuming there is one).

Iain,

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Michel Dänzer]

Giuliano Pochini wrote:

> Now I run XF4 and the problem is even worse. I get underruns at 38400
> :-(((((((((((((
>
> What can I do ?  And why X affects the serial port ??

I assume you are running an accelerated driver, which moves load from the CPU
to the graphics chip, which may increase interrupt and/or bus load/latency.


Michel


--
Chaos, panic and disorder -- my work here is done.
______________________________________________________________________________
Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)  \  CS student and free software enthusiast
Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc,i386) user \   member of XFree86, Team *AMIGA*, AUGS

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Takashi Oe]

On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Iain Sandoe wrote:

> > Ok, this is a news to me.  I'm certain that SCC on oldworld pmacs is
> > 85C30.  When did the change to 85230 occur?  If I remember correctly,
> > some DMA setup codes in macserial.c need to know about it if it's dealing
> > with 85230 rather than 85C30.
>
> OK - I don't know for certain - but the code refers to an "ESCC" which is
> the name of the 85230 - the 8530 should just be called "SCC".

It's not 8530.  I got an impression from Zilog's manual that ESCC refers
to both 85230 and 85C30 loosely.  Actually, on some pages, the term was
used to refer to functionalities only available on 85230, and, on other
pages, it was used to describe something 8530 doesn't support but both
85C30 and 85230 do.  AMD's usage of the term ESCC is yet slightly
different, IIRC.

Anyway, Apple's documentation uses the term ESCC and 85C30
interchangeably, and I think the driver's usage of the term "ESCC" comes
from there.


Takashi Oe


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

Giuliano Pochini wrote:
>
> > >Hi!  I have troubles with my stealth port on a G3-blue. When it runs at
> > 115200
> > >ifconfig
> > >shows a lot of overruns. At 57600 it works fine, but it's slow :-((

The problem is definitely X.  I made a lot of tests: with dma and non-dma
serial driver, X accelerated, non accelerated, X bare.bone (started with
xinit). The problem is X. When X is running the serial ports looses packets
:-((
Am I the only one who is having this problem ???  Why does X cause overruns ??

Bye.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Iain Sandoe]

On  Sun, Jul 30, 2000, Takashi Oe wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>> > Ok, this is a news to me.  I'm certain that SCC on oldworld pmacs is
>> > 85C30.  When did the change to 85230 occur?  If I remember correctly,
>> > some DMA setup codes in macserial.c need to know about it if it's dealing
>> > with 85230 rather than 85C30.
>>
>> OK - I don't know for certain - but the code refers to an "ESCC" which is
>> the name of the 85230 - the 8530 should just be called "SCC".
>
> It's not 8530.  I got an impression from Zilog's manual that ESCC refers
> to both 85230 and 85C30 loosely.

That manual has "Iain's all-time-award-for-the-worst-written-chip-manual"
:-(

>  Actually, on some pages, the term was
> used to refer to functionalities only available on 85230, and, on other
> pages, it was used to describe something 8530 doesn't support but both
> 85C30 and 85230 do.  AMD's usage of the term ESCC is yet slightly
> different, IIRC.
>
> Anyway, Apple's documentation uses the term ESCC and 85C30
> interchangeably, and I think the driver's usage of the term "ESCC" comes
> from there.

OK.  Well, that makes things worse - rather than better (re. the original
problem - if DMA is not enabled).  The 8530 had only 4 bytes of RX buffer &
only 2 Tx (the ESCC doubled these) - can't remember about the 85C30.  Wrote
drivers for the other two some years ago on a different OS (so memory might
be a shade foggy).

Of course, Apple has implemented the devices as a cell in an ASIC - so who
knows?

Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

>> I've just tried the old non-dma code. Same problem :-(((
>
> If so, could you check if you have DMA enabled with dma code?
>
>       $ cat /proc/interrupts
>            CPU0
>         2:          0   PMAC-PIC      MACE-txdma
>         3:          0   PMAC-PIC      MACE-rxdma
>         4:          0   PMAC-PIC      SCC-txdma
>         5:          0   PMAC-PIC      SCC-rxdma
>         6:          0   PMAC-PIC      SCC-txdma
>         7:      15593   PMAC-PIC      SCC-rxdma
>         8:         17   PMAC-PIC      AWACS out
>        12:          7   PMAC-PIC      53C94
>        13:    3411091   PMAC-PIC      MESH
>        14:          0   PMAC-PIC      MACE
>        15:          0   PMAC-PIC      SCC
>        16:     594667   PMAC-PIC      SCC
>        17:          0   PMAC-PIC      AWACS
>        18:     991629   PMAC-PIC      VIA
>        19:          0   PMAC-PIC      SWIM3
>        25:          0   PMAC-PIC      usb-ohci, ohci-usb
>       BAD:          0
>       $
>
> If you don't see "SCC-rxdma", then it's not enabled.

Uhmm, IFAI can remember, there wasn't any SCC-XXdma (the G3 is at home, I'm
writing from workplace).

> The reason I ask is
> that a G3-blue's SCC device node has more than three addresses if I
> remember correctly, and, if that's the case, the dma code won't be enabled
> due to the following sniplet in chan_init() of macserial.c:
>
>#if !defined(CONFIG_KGDB) && defined(SUPPORT_SERIAL_DMA)
>       if (ch->n_addrs == 3 && ch->n_intrs == 3)
>               zss->has_dma = 1;
>#endif
>
> It can be fixed if the above is changed to something like:
>
>#if !defined(CONFIG_KGDB) && defined(SUPPORT_SERIAL_DMA)
>       if (ch->n_addrs >= 3 && ch->n_intrs == 3)
>               zss->has_dma = 1;
>#endif
>
> I think the last two addresses correspond to DMA addresses for all
> SCC capable machines so far, so this change should be ok.

Ok, this night I'll try this. Tnx.


Bye.
    Giuliano Pochini ->)|(<- Shiny Corporation {AS6665} ->)|(<-


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

>> The problem is definitely X.  I made a lot of tests: with dma and non-dma
>> serial driver, X accelerated, non accelerated, X bare.bone (started with
>> xinit). The problem is X. When X is running the serial ports looses packets
>> :-((
>> Am I the only one who is having this problem ???  Why does X cause overruns
>> ??

> If you can try 2.2.17pre10ben2 or pre13ben2 (linuxcare linux-pmac-benh) then
> you can apply the IRQ latency test and see if it is that which is blocking
> you.  Scan the dev list for "[ANN} IRQ".

I'll try a soon I have a bit of free time...

> It is possible (there was a discussion in the ANN thread about fb IRQ
> blocks) - X may aggravate this.
>
> I have seen 2ms of IRQ blocking on the Lombard (using IDE CDROM) and around
> 450-750 us of IRQ blocking on my other machines (SCSI). [when heavily
> loaded].

:-6  Why IRQ is kept locked for so much time ?

> The RX buffer in an 85230 (which is actually the chip - IIRC - an enhanced
> 8530) is 8 characters deep - so any more that about 700 us IRQ block will
> cause a drop out at 115200 continuous...

On the Amiga I used to rtx stuff at 230K with no problems. It has 1 byte
buffer...


Bye.
    Giuliano Pochini ->)|(<- Shiny Corporation {AS6665} ->)|(<-


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Iain Sandoe]

On  Mon, Jul 31, 2000,  Giuliano Pochini wrote:
>>> The problem is definitely X.  I made a lot of tests: with dma and non-dma
>>> serial driver, X accelerated, non accelerated, X bare.bone (started with
>>> xinit). The problem is X. When X is running the serial ports looses packets
>>> :-((
>>> Am I the only one who is having this problem ???  Why does X cause overruns
>>> ??
>
>> If you can try 2.2.17pre10ben2 or pre13ben2 (linuxcare linux-pmac-benh) then
>> you can apply the IRQ latency test and see if it is that which is blocking
>> you.  Scan the dev list for "[ANN} IRQ".
>
> I'll try a soon I have a bit of free time...

There's a pre-built kernel, modules & system.map (with IRQ latency &
dmasound stuff already applied ) linked to:

http://www.drfruitcake.com/linux/linuxppc.html

The IRQh app - which you need to start the profiling is linked to :

http://www.drfruitcake.com/linux/irq_blk.html

>> The RX buffer in an 85230 (which is actually the chip - IIRC - an enhanced
>> 8530) is 8 characters deep - so any more that about 700 us IRQ block will
>> cause a drop out at 115200 continuous...
>
> On the Amiga I used to rtx stuff at 230K with no problems. It has 1 byte
> buffer...

BTW st SCC-XXdma stuff *is* enabled on my G3 by default.

Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Timothy A. Seufert]

At 10:11 AM +0100 7/31/00, Iain Sandoe wrote:

>BTW st SCC-XXdma stuff *is* enabled on my G3 by default.

Beige or blue?  On my B&W G3 it's not enabled, I only see the plain
non-DMA RX and TX interrupts.

   Tim Seufert

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Iain Sandoe]

On  Mon, Jul 31, 2000, Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
> At 10:11 AM +0100 7/31/00, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>
>>BTW st SCC-XXdma stuff *is* enabled on my G3 by default.
>
> Beige or blue?  On my B&W G3 it's not enabled, I only see the plain
> non-DMA RX and TX interrupts.

Beige - but I was burbling (again) - I build all my own kernels... so YMMV
;-)
Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Giuliano Pochini wrote:
> On the Amiga I used to rtx stuff at 230K with no problems. It has 1 byte
> buffer...

Under AmigaOS or under Linux/{m68k,PPC}? :-)

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

						Geert

--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
							    -- Linus Torvalds


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Iain Sandoe]

On  Mon, Jul 31, 2000, I wrote...
> On  Mon, Jul 31, 2000, Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
>> At 10:11 AM +0100 7/31/00, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>
>>>BTW st SCC-XXdma stuff *is* enabled on my G3 by default.
>>
>> Beige or blue?  On my B&W G3 it's not enabled, I only see the plain
>> non-DMA RX and TX interrupts.
>
> Beige - but I was burbling (again) - I build all my own kernels... so YMMV

FWIW:
With the same kernel...
On my Lombard - the SCC XXdma does *not* show
On my 9600 - it does.

Config options supplied if you like :-)
Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

>#if !defined(CONFIG_KGDB) && defined(SUPPORT_SERIAL_DMA)
>       if (ch->n_addrs >= 3 && ch->n_intrs == 3)
>               zss->has_dma = 1;
>#endif
>
> I think the last two addresses correspond to DMA addresses for all
> SCC capable machines so far, so this change should be ok.

I had the time to try the patch for just a few minutes. It enables the dma
code successfully and it seems to work fine. More testing this night.

Tnx !

Bye.
    Giuliano Pochini ->)|(<- Shiny Corporation {AS6665} ->)|(<-


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

>> >
>> > I think the last two addresses correspond to DMA addresses for all
>> > SCC capable machines so far, so this change should be ok.
>>
>> I had the time to try the patch for just a few minutes. It enables the dma
>> code successfully and it seems to work fine. More testing this night.
>>
>> Tnx !
>
>I confirm. It works fine.

I'm pushing this fix to my rsync 2.2 tree and bk 2.4

Ben.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Giuliano Pochini]

Giuliano Pochini wrote:
>
> >#if !defined(CONFIG_KGDB) && defined(SUPPORT_SERIAL_DMA)
> >       if (ch->n_addrs >= 3 && ch->n_intrs == 3)
> >               zss->has_dma = 1;
> >#endif
> >
> > I think the last two addresses correspond to DMA addresses for all
> > SCC capable machines so far, so this change should be ok.
>
> I had the time to try the patch for just a few minutes. It enables the dma
> code successfully and it seems to work fine. More testing this night.
>
> Tnx !

I confirm. It works fine.

Bye.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Timothy A. Seufert]

At 1:22 PM +0100 7/31/00, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>On  Mon, Jul 31, 2000, I wrote...
>>  On  Mon, Jul 31, 2000, Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
>>>  At 10:11 AM +0100 7/31/00, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>>
>>>>BTW st SCC-XXdma stuff *is* enabled on my G3 by default.
>>>
>>>  Beige or blue?  On my B&W G3 it's not enabled, I only see the plain
>>>  non-DMA RX and TX interrupts.
>>
>>  Beige - but I was burbling (again) - I build all my own kernels... so YMMV
>
>FWIW:
>With the same kernel...
>On my Lombard - the SCC XXdma does *not* show
>On my 9600 - it does.

So it looks like it's not getting enabled on New World machines.
After a brief look at the driver init code my impression (quite
possibly a wildly inaccurate one BTW) is that the driver wants DMA
channels and/or IRQs already partially configured.  On New World
machines booted via yaboot these may not be configured by OF.  On Old
World machines booted via BootX MacOS does the initialization.

   Tim Seufert

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Iain Sandoe]

 Tue, Aug 1, 2000,Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
> At 1:22 PM +0100 7/31/00, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>On  Mon, Jul 31, 2000, I wrote...
>>>  On  Mon, Jul 31, 2000, Timothy A. Seufert wrote:
>>>>  At 10:11 AM +0100 7/31/00, Iain Sandoe wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>BTW st SCC-XXdma stuff *is* enabled on my G3 by default.
>>>>
>>>>  Beige or blue?  On my B&W G3 it's not enabled, I only see the plain
>>>>  non-DMA RX and TX interrupts.
>>>
>>>  Beige - but I was burbling (again) - I build all my own kernels... so YMMV
>>
>>FWIW:
>>With the same kernel...
>>On my Lombard - the SCC XXdma does *not* show
>>On my 9600 - it does.
>
> So it looks like it's not getting enabled on New World machines.
> After a brief look at the driver init code my impression (quite
> possibly a wildly inaccurate one BTW) is that the driver wants DMA
> channels and/or IRQs already partially configured.  On New World
> machines booted via yaboot these may not be configured by OF.  On Old
> World machines booted via BootX MacOS does the initialization.

I think I saw a patch for this fly by yesterday :-)

Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Benjamin Herrenschmidt]

>
>So it looks like it's not getting enabled on New World machines.
>After a brief look at the driver init code my impression (quite
>possibly a wildly inaccurate one BTW) is that the driver wants DMA
>channels and/or IRQs already partially configured.  On New World
>machines booted via yaboot these may not be configured by OF.  On Old
>World machines booted via BootX MacOS does the initialization.

Can you all test with my rsync tree ? I changed the test against the
number of addresses as Takashi pointed out. If it still doesn't work, we
may have to add missing addresses "manually" (I hate OF tree fixup code ;)

ben.


** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

Re: Stealth port problems

[Iain Sandoe]

>>So it looks like it's not getting enabled on New World machines.
>>After a brief look at the driver init code my impression (quite
>>possibly a wildly inaccurate one BTW) is that the driver wants DMA
>>channels and/or IRQs already partially configured.  On New World
>>machines booted via yaboot these may not be configured by OF.  On Old
>>World machines booted via BootX MacOS does the initialization.
>
> Can you all test with my rsync tree ? I changed the test against the
> number of addresses as Takashi pointed out. If it still doesn't work, we
> may have to add missing addresses "manually" (I hate OF tree fixup code ;)

yep. xxDMA show up OK on my Lombard now... sorr, can't test (I haven't
tangled with irDA and have no easy modem-based test).

Iain.

** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/