| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Hans Petter Selasky | May 27, 2007 8:35 pm | |
| M. Warner Losh | May 27, 2007 8:55 pm | |
| John-Mark Gurney | May 27, 2007 10:19 pm | |
| Hans Petter Selasky | May 28, 2007 6:43 am | |
| Hans Petter Selasky | May 28, 2007 6:53 am | |
| Hans Petter Selasky | May 28, 2007 7:04 am | |
| Julian Elischer | May 28, 2007 7:15 am | |
| John-Mark Gurney | May 28, 2007 7:50 am | |
| Julian Elischer | May 28, 2007 7:59 am | |
| Hans Petter Selasky | Jun 11, 2007 7:19 am | |
| Julian Elischer | Jun 12, 2007 5:29 pm | |
| Hans Petter Selasky | Jun 13, 2007 9:04 am | |
| Julian Elischer | Jun 15, 2007 7:35 pm | |
| Hans Petter Selasky | Jun 18, 2007 6:26 am | |
| M. Warner Losh | Jun 18, 2007 7:39 pm | |
| Thomas Sparrevohn | Jun 19, 2007 8:49 am | |
| Alexander Leidinger | Jun 19, 2007 12:08 pm |
| Subject: | 31st address line sometimes not used on EHCI/UHCI/OHCI | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Hans Petter Selasky (hsel...@c2i.net) | |
| Date: | May 28, 2007 6:53:10 am | |
| List: | org.freebsd.freebsd-usb | |
On Sunday 27 May 2007 23:53, John-Mark Gurney wrote:
Hans Petter Selasky wrote this message on Sun, May 27, 2007 at 22:35 +0200:
I've got some reports back that some USB host controllers do not support transferring memory from a location higher than 2GB.
What should we do about this?
Should we limit all USB DMA allocations to the lower 2GB of the memory?
No, a quirk table should be setup and pass the restriction to bus_dma at tag initalization time when a broken controller is detected..
Yes, I can do that. But I am also thinking about a static quirk, like a sysctl you can set at boot time.
I hope that this is not a wide-spread problem.
And I am not surprised that hardware manufacturers are not specification compliant, which really makes me wonder if they support a true 64-bit address bus on the EHCI controller at all. I would maybe cost too much money? And therefore we should just stick with 32-bit addressing on 32-bit platforms aswell.
--HPS





