Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:22:26 -0600 From: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: markmc@dataabstractsolutions.com, "freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Stable" <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: disable 64-bit dma for one PCI slot only? Message-ID: <4F739848-E3CE-4E2C-A91E-90F33410E7AC@samsco.org> In-Reply-To: <201107181714.07827.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <4E20BA23.13717.66C6F57@markmcconnell.iinet.com> <201107181402.12755.jhb@freebsd.org> <797CACDE-729E-4F3A-AEFF-531C00C2B83A@samsco.org> <201107181714.07827.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Jul 18, 2011, at 3:14 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Monday, July 18, 2011 5:06:40 pm Scott Long wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 2011, at 12:02 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>> On Friday, July 15, 2011 6:07:31 pm Mark McConnell wrote:
>>>> Dear folks,
>>>>=20
>>>> I have two LSI raid cards, one of which (SCSI 320-I) supports=20
>>>> 64-bit DMA when 4GB+ of DDR is present and another which=20
>>>> does not (SATA 150-D) . Consquently I've disabled 64-bit=20
>>>> addressing for amr devices.
>>>>=20
>>>> I would like to disable 64-bit addressing for the SATA card, but=20
>>>> permit it for the SCSI card. Is this possible?
>>>=20
>>> You'd have to hack the driver perhaps to only disable 64-bit DMA for =
certain=20
>>> PCI IDs. It probably already does this?
>>>=20
>>=20
>> The driver already had a table for determining 64bit DMA based on the =
PCI ID.
>> I guess there's a mistake in the table for this particular card. I =
think that
>> changing the following line to remove the AMR_ID_DO_SG64 flag will =
fix the
>> problem:
>>=20
>> {0x1000, 0x1960, AMR_ID_QUARTZ | AMR_ID_DO_SG64 | =
AMR_ID_PROBE_SIG},
>>=20
>> Actually, what's probably going on is that the driver is only looking =
at the
>> vendor and device id's, and is ignoring the subvendor and subdevice =
id's that
>> would give it a better clue on the exact hardware in use. Fixing the =
driver
>> to look at all 64bits of id info (and take into account wildcards =
where
>> needed) would be a good project, if anyone is interested.
>>=20
>> Btw, I *HATE* the "chip" and "card" identifiers used in pciconf. Can =
we
>> change it to emit the standard (sub)vendor/(sub)device terminology?
>=20
> Oh, yeah. I hate that too. Would you want them as 4 separate =
entities or to
> just rename the labels to 'devid' and 'subdevid'?
>=20
If we're going to change it, might as well break it down into 4 fields. =
Maybe we retain the old format under a legacy switch and/or env variable =
for users that have tools that parse the output (cough yahoo cough).
Scott
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F739848-E3CE-4E2C-A91E-90F33410E7AC>