[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: port-hp700/35531: iee0 does not work on 735/99
The following reply was made to PR port-hp700/35531; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Nick Hudson <nick.hudson%gmx.co.uk@localhost>
To: Izumi Tsutsui <tsutsui%ceres.dti.ne.jp@localhost>
Subject: Re: port-hp700/35531: iee0 does not work on 735/99
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 19:15:01 +0100
On Tuesday 05 May 2009 13:26:42 Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
> I wrote:
> > nick.hudson%gmx.co.uk@localhost wrote:
> > > I've tested this on my 715/50 against netbsd-5 as I've got too many
> > > changes in my -current source trees :)
> > The same patch can be applied to -current too ;-)
> Umm, on -current iee(4) even without my patch gets
> timeouts and errors on heavy load:
> iee0: iee_watchdog: transmit timeout 22
> iee0: iee_intr: receive error 1, rfd_status=0x0000, rfd_count=0x0000
I've briefly tested by scp'ing a kernel to a hp715/50
notsonoisy# dmesg | grep iee
iee0 at gsc0 hpa 0xf0826000 path 2/0/2 irq 8 ipl 2: Intel 82596DX/SX address
and a hp715/64
hp715-64# dmesg | grep iee
iee0 at gsc0 hpa 0xf0107000 path 2/0/2 irq 8 ipl 2: Intel 82596CA address
and neither prints the watchdog message.
> Could newer pmap require more strict bus_dmamap_sync(9) calls
> in MI drivers? IIRC hppa doesn't have BUS_DMA_COHERENT support.
> (I don't know if it will work on other newer machines like 712)
All bus_dmamem_alloc memory is mapped uncacheable regardless of pmap, so I
don't think this is the problem.
> I'll commit MI i82596 changes anyway, but should we still disable
> iee(4) on its hp700 attachment, and enable it only in netbsd-5 branch?
> (though ie(4) also gets timeouts even on netbsd-5...)
I still think we go with iee(4) everywhere and kill ie(4).
> Izumi Tsutsui
Main Index |
Thread Index |