Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 10:47:08 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: scottl@samsco.org Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, bde@zeta.org.au, jhb@FreeBSD.org, cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, mj@feral.com Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/bce if_bcereg.h Message-ID: <20060426.104708.85411757.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20060426.102502.11595340.imp@bsdimp.com> References: <444F0923.8050508@samsco.org> <20060426.101245.90994186.imp@bsdimp.com> <20060426.102502.11595340.imp@bsdimp.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
In message: <20060426.102502.11595340.imp@bsdimp.com>
"M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> writes:
: While an individual DMA transfer on the
: PCI-E bus may not cross such a boundary, I bleieve that individual
: resources can consume more than 4G. Our PCI code doesn't handle BARs
: that are > 4G in size correctly, but it does handle BARs that are
: mapped anywhere in a 64-bit address space.
I went ahead and looked it up in the standard. Our current PCI code
does sizing of 64-bit BARs with only 32-bits. But the 2.2 standard
specifically says, in an implementation note, that it should be done
with 64-bits. On page 204 in section 6.2.5.1:
"64-bit (memory) Base Address registers can be handled the
same, except that the second 32-bit register is considered an
extension of the first; ie bits 32-63. Software writes
0xffffffff to both registers, reads them back, and combines
the result into a 64-bit value. Size calculation is done on
the 64-bit value."
Anyway, consider this just a footnote to the conversation. I'm happy
leaving well enough alone for the i386 implementation given the
sentiment expressed in this thread.
Warner
home |
help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060426.104708.85411757.imp>