From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linas@austin.ibm.com Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 10:34:14 -0600 To: Marc Leeman Cc: linuxppc-dev list Subject: Re: PCI Memory mapping Message-ID: <20040325103414.C64292@forte.austin.ibm.com> References: <20040316114030.GB7133@smtp.barco.com> <1079455175.4184.25.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20040322074833.GY7133@smtp.barco.com> <20040323111736.GJ1446@smtp.barco.com> <1080086640.23208.164.camel@gaston> <20040324122652.GA22171@smtp.barco.com> <20040324142524.GA22701@smtp.barco.com> <20040324110814.E50148@forte.austin.ibm.com> <20040325154845.GF3696@smtp.barco.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20040325154845.GF3696@smtp.barco.com>; from marc.leeman@barco.com on Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 04:48:46PM +0100 Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 04:48:46PM +0100, Marc Leeman wrote: > As ever, insights are welcome :-/ OK, another wild guess: are the cache lines properly invalidated? I think you said that the corrpution was a copy of earlier data ... well, where could 'earlier data' be hiding? The offsets you're reporting sound all wrong, but hey ... Don't know how hard it would be for you to run the test with cachine disabled, but it might be worth a try. --linas ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/