Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 22:44:02 +0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@netplex.com.au> To: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> Cc: alpha@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rman_get_virtual() on alpha Message-ID: <19990818144402.DC8091C99@overcee.netplex.com.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:04:50 %2B0100." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9908181503430.72739-100000@salmon.nlsystems.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Doug Rabson wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Peter Wemm wrote:
>
> > So, what's the situation these days with rman_get_virtual()? if_fxp explod
es
> > on the alpha because it allocates SYS_RES_MEMORY and wants the virtual
> > address of it, but the alpha still is returning physical addresses it seems
.
> >
> > It seems to me we might need some alternative to rman_get_virtual since it
> > doesn't have enough context and is just a hack. Perhaps allocating memory
> > and activating a mapping etc needs to be seperate bus methods? That way we
> > can allocate memory, and later activate it (pmap_mapdev on x86, BWX, or
> > DENSE on Alpha as requested) and free it's kvm mappings?
>
> The fxp driver should probable use SYS_RES_DENSE to get the right virtual
> pointer. It would certainly be a lot cleaner to separate the resource
> allocation from the virtual mapping.
The question is though, allocating memory resources on the alpha - does it
depend on the mapping type (dense vs. bwx)? Or is that decision better
left to mapping time? And can we fit this in with bus_space etc? (NetBSD
has a bus_space_map() function to map bus space into kvm, maybe we need a
parallel to that such that we don't have to expose DENSE/BWX etc mappings
to drivers). Or maybe map it in both dense and bwx space and let bus_space
use whichever method is convenient?
Cheers,
-Peter
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?19990818144402.DC8091C99>