From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751899Ab0C0Bzu (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:55:50 -0400 Received: from mail-gy0-f174.google.com ([209.85.160.174]:46379 "EHLO mail-gy0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751310Ab0C0Bzs (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Mar 2010 21:55:48 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DY+zpykW8nYjtlYEV7q7lrR+MNKZ7oryqR+kGz17ydy3bEkdS17s5RFwTZVuIUxcRK 8l3gqE8z5GHL7b054P2kAW82IalpyMKaHCCs1R9YeMAAlUnTqfKLaOsce7t3T646zV4r FX7Y9eajuWfHHT7bBr1GLKCfD8fjjN/vmDLIE= Message-ID: <4BAD65A0.7090309@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:55:44 -0600 From: Robert Hancock User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100301 Fedora/3.0.3-1.fc12 Thunderbird/3.0.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?77+9IEVuZ2Vs?= CC: David Miller , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, romieu@fr.zoreil.com Subject: Re: [Regression] r8169: enable 64-bit DMA by default for PCI Express devices (v2) References: <20100315150806.GA15354@Dublin.logfs.org> <20100315151041.GA15667@Dublin.logfs.org> <20100315.115748.13754030.davem@davemloft.net> <51f3faa71003151628g5edc4d7av8916ac76cb337bfe@mail.gmail.com> <20100316083501.GA3489@Dublin.logfs.org> <51f3faa71003161630g69160ea9tc1a2d448682632e5@mail.gmail.com> <51f3faa71003251756h17374375yd3a5d2acee2ffab9@mail.gmail.com> <20100326091234.GA11959@Dublin.logfs.org> In-Reply-To: <20100326091234.GA11959@Dublin.logfs.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/26/2010 03:12 AM, � Engel wrote: > On Thu, 25 March 2010 18:56:03 -0600, Robert Hancock wrote: >> >> Francois, ping? Is there anyone else that has access to this kind of >> information about these chips? >> >> It's kind of interesting that there's only been one report of this >> though. Either the affected chips are rare among people testing >> 2.6.34-rc or there's something more to this. Maybe something >> wierd/unusual about Jörn's system? >> >> Jörn, are any other devices on your system working with 64-bit >> addressing? Try doing this: >> >> find /sys -name "*dma_mask_bits*" | xargs cat >> >> Does anything show more than 32? > > I've slightly changed the command: > # for i in `find /sys -name "*dma_mask_bits*"`; do echo -n "$i: "; cat $i; done > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:00.0/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:00.0/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.0/dma_mask_bits: 36 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:02.0/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 36 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.0/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.0/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.1/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.1/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.1/0000:01:00.0/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.1/0000:01:00.0/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.0/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.0/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.1/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.1/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.2/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.2/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.3/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.3/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1d.7/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1e.0/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1e.0/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.0/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.0/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.1/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.1/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.2/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.3/dma_mask_bits: 32 > /sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1f.3/consistent_dma_mask_bits: 32 > > One device, which should be this one: > 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82G33/G31 Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 10) Well, that one's 36 bits, but it's unclear whether that driver would actually be likely to access anything over 4GB. It's possible that there's just some general problem with 64-bit DMA on that machine. The fact that even stuff like lspci and MII is breaking seems odd, though. It could be that model of card doesn't like the PCIDAC register bit being set (maybe it means something different on that model, or something). I suppose a publicly accessible datasheet for these chips is too much to hope for?