hi i am writing a video kernel driver for linux lexos and have got stuck
this is how NVIDIA do their regs
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT 0x00002210 /*
RW-4R */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_BASE_ADDRESS 8:4 /*
RWIUF */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_BASE_ADDRESS_10000 0x00000010 /*
RWI-V */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SIZE 17:16 /*
RWIUF */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SIZE_4K 0x00000000 /*
RWI-V */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SIZE_8K 0x00000001 /*
RW--V */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SIZE_16K 0x00000002 /*
RW--V */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SIZE_32K 0x00000003 /*
RW--V */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SEARCH 25:24 /*
RWIUF */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SEARCH_16 0x00000000 /*
RWI-V */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SEARCH_32 0x00000001 /*
RW--V */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SEARCH_64 0x00000002 /*
RW--V */
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_SEARCH_128 0x00000003 /*
RW--V */
this can be used like setreg( NV_PFIFO_RAMHT , htbase << ( 0 ?
NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_BASE_ADDRESS)) ;
but i wont to make it better so i tried it this way
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_BASE_ADDRESS 0x00002210:8:4:3 /* address : high
bit : low bit : mode 3 = rw
this seemed much better all on one line so you can do
setreg(NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_BASE_ADDRESS , htbase) ;
but ( 2 ? 1:2:3 ) dose not work
and NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_BASE_ADDRESS 0x00002210,8,4,3 dose not work as
setreg(a,h,l,m) thinks this is
all one agr
the other would be to have it as a big struct
but then compiler can not optimize it ( i think )
if i can use #define 's the it quicker and setreg can be an inline asm
marco
how would it work if i used 64 bit like this
bits 32 - 63 reg address
bits 24 - 31 high bit
bits 16 - 23 low bit
bits 0 - 7 mode
#define NV_PFIFO_RAMHT_BASE_ADDRESS 0x0000221008040003
so if i sent this to the setreg(unsigned long long , data) asm macro it
would be in EAX:EDX (64 bit)
can the kernel use (long long) and (unsigned long long) ( 64 bit ints)
that 64 bit way look good but is it ?
( opps i wold need an extr 32 bits for value but can
have 64:32 i think )
has anyone got any help they can give me on this !please email me thank
you!
as i am stuck
also is there a down loadable book on c++ as i am just learning from
others ppl code and really
need a book to do it right
thank you david rundle <[email protected]>
Speaking of Nvidia, I have a Nvidia GeForce2, and had problems loading
the NV kernel module with a patched test10 kernel (i was running test9
before). I took a look at the test10 patch, and noticed the following 2
lines were taken out of <linux_dir>/include/linux/wrapper.h:
#define mem_map_inc_count(p) atomic_inc(&(p->count))
#define mem_map_dec_count(p) atomic_dec(&(p->count))
I added those two defines back into wrapper.h and then was able to load
the NVdriver successfully, with no problems. This doesn't appear to
break compiliation of the test10 kernel either. I thought I'd let
everyone know if anyone was having problems with the NV kernel driver.
Please note, I am not a C programmer, but more of a C hacker, and this
worked for me on my Slackware 7.1 machine. I have no idea what this may
have broken in the kernel or whatnot. I only know that this fixed the
problem on this particular box with the NV kernel driver, so proceed at
your own risk ;-)
david wrote:
> hi i am writing a video kernel driver for linux lexos and have got stuck
>
> this is how NVIDIA do their regs
>
On Wed, 08 Nov 2000 10:52:41 Anthony Chatman wrote:
> Speaking of Nvidia, I have a Nvidia GeForce2, and had problems loading
> the NV kernel module with a patched test10 kernel (i was running test9
> before). I took a look at the test10 patch, and noticed the following 2
> lines were taken out of <linux_dir>/include/linux/wrapper.h:
>
> #define mem_map_inc_count(p) atomic_inc(&(p->count))
> #define mem_map_dec_count(p) atomic_dec(&(p->count))
>
> I added those two defines back into wrapper.h and then was able to load
I think you should never do that. Those macros are outdated and were
removed from kernel. Patch NVdriver instead. Patch is attached.
BTW: does your board run ok on 2.4 ? I have a TNT2 and have not been able
to get it working on a 2.4-smp. In 2.2-smp works fine. I don't know what
is bad...In a recent strace (with test10), it seemed to be hanged on a
poll() call...
--
Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta #> cd /pub
mailto:[email protected] #> more beer
On Thu, 09 Nov 2000 08:54:36 Athanasius wrote:
>
> Oh no it wasn't, doh *;-).
One other try...
--
Juan Antonio Magallon Lacarta #> cd /pub
mailto:[email protected] #> more beer