Re: 2.2.15 with eepro100: eth0: Too much work at interrupt

From: Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com)
Date: Fri May 19 2000 - 21:24:26 EDT

  • Next message: Andrey Savochkin: "Re: 2.2.15 with eepro100: eth0: Too much work at interrupt"

    Andrew Morton wrote:
    >
    > Jeff Garzik wrote:
    > >
    > > Remember first that eepro100 is generally MMIO, so you the following is
    > > in effect:
    > > #define inw writew
    >
    > readw, I hope :)
    >
    > One thing I've noticed about the new PCI scanning code is that
    > it unconditionally maps both IO and MEM space. So even if you
    > don't _want_ IO (or mem) mapping, you get both. Whereas the
    > old code allowed you to select whether or not each address
    > space should be enabled. Is this kosher?

    It is not mapping both I/O and MMIO space, it is merely reserving the
    resource regions for both MMIO and PIO. I think this is a good idea
    because it eliminates any chance of those resources being allocated to
    anyone else.

    It's basically a harmless sanity check I put in...

    > BTW, in eepro100 this:
    >
    > #ifdef USE_IO
    > #define SPEEDO_IOTYPE PCI_USES_MASTER|PCI_USES_IO|PCI_ADDR1
    > #define SPEEDO_SIZE 32
    > #else
    > #define SPEEDO_IOTYPE PCI_USES_MASTER|PCI_USES_MEM|PCI_ADDR0
    > #define SPEEDO_SIZE 0x1000
    > #endif
    >
    > appears to be a holdover from the previous generation
    > of PCI code and is now unreferenced.

    SPEEDO_SIZE should probably be used in the ioremap() call.

    > Thirdly, Don's PCI scanning code allows you to specify bitmasks
    > to be used when comparing device and vendor IDs.

    > This is kind
    > of neat, because it allows you to say that this driver supports
    > a (power-of-two) _range_ of device IDs, so if in a year's time
    > the manufacturer comes out with a new card and increments the
    > device ID, the driver still has a good chance of working. A
    > bit of future-safety.

    I wouldn't feel so secure, making predictions about the future...

    > Could we add this capability to the current PCI scan code? If
    > we invert the mask and put it right at the end of struct
    > pci_device_id it will be upward compatible with the existing
    > source.

    Just use PCI_ANY_ID and implement the more fine-grained scanning inside
    the driver.

            Jeff

    -- 
    Jeff Garzik              | Liberty is always dangerous, but
    Building 1024            | it is the safest thing we have.
    MandrakeSoft, Inc.       |      -- Harry Emerson Fosdick
    

    - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri May 19 2000 - 21:29:36 EDT