Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2002 16:01:53 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gallatin <gallatin@cs.duke.edu> To: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: www/en/projects/busdma index.sgml style.css (fwd) Message-ID: <15862.22081.436375.524026@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021210155334.62186O-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <15860.58186.22476.565069@grasshopper.cs.duke.edu> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1021210155334.62186O-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Robert Watson writes: > > > I'd be happy to help anybody interested in this task, but I feel > > reluctant to take it on myself due to time commitments at my day job. > > > > FWIW, some of this is fresh in my mind, as I was recently fooling around > > with expanding the direct map on miatas. This is a no-go, due to where > > the SRM places the memory space for the PCI devices in the system. (just > > past 2GB). > > Hmm. So it sounds like the minimal code to make busdma "work" is there, > but that until we have interface drivers, it's hard to know whether it > actually will work, and that the busdma code could generally use some As I said before, some (all?) scsi drivers use it. Isa devices which work on alpha use it. It works for the older raw bus_dmamap_load. Its the mbuf interface which is untested. > improvement to better support large memory systems. Do you mind if I set > you as the task owner on the busdma page for making sure alpha busdma is > up to spec? I'd like to make sure all this stuff is in line for 5.1, if > we can. Depends what you mean by "up to spec". If you mean making sure the mbuf interface works, then yes. If you mean making large memory machine work well, then no. Drew To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?15862.22081.436375.524026>