Re: [RFT] e100 driver on ARM

[Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 09:41:22AM -0400, David Acker wrote:

> Here is a quote from Russell that describes what I believe is the main 
> problem:
> http://www-gatago.com/linux/kernel/15457063.html
> "
> Has e100 actually been fixed to use the PCI DMA API correctly yet?
> Looking at it, it doesn't look like it, so until it does, eepro100
> is the far better bet for platforms needing working DMA API.
> 
> What I'm talking about is e100's apparant belief that it can modify
> rfd's in the receive ring on a non-cache coherent architecture and
> expect the data around it to remain unaffected (see e100_rx_alloc_skb):
> 
> struct rfd {
> u16 status;
> u16 command;
> u32 link;
> u32 rbd;
> u16 actual_size;
> u16 size;
> };
> 
> it touches command and link. This means that the whole rfd plus
> maybe the following or preceding 16 bytes get loaded into a cache
> line (assuming cache lines of 32 bytes), and that data written
> out again at sync. However, it does this on what seems to be an
> active receive chain.
> 
> So, both the CPU _and_ the device own the same data. Which is a
> violation of the DMA API.
> "
> 
> I think that the S-bit patch fixes it because the hardware spins on the 
> s-bit instead of using the packet.  With just the el-bit, the hardware 
> tries to use the same cache line that the software is updating.
> 
> Can someone from Intel let us know if I understand the hardware's 
> handling of the S and EL bits?  If my interpretation is correct, can the 
> s-bit patch be applied?  It seems like the correct way to lock out the 
> hardware while a packet is being updated.  I have not seen a reason 
> given not to apply the patch.

This is all a while ago now, but wasn't the e100 S-bit patch originally
written by Intel people in response to the very same quote by Russell
King that you've quoted above?  The S-bit patch should probably just
be applied, IMHO.