Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <[email protected]>
---
Ideally this should have been applied before:
ssb: return correct translation bit for 64-bit DMA
This is because mentioned patch added TMSHIGH register read on every
ssb_dma_translation call which affected performance.
If we can live with affected performance between that 2 commits, please
just apply this ASAP.
It affected performance (however I don't expect anything like making it
90% slower) is not acceptable, please revert mentioned patch, apply this
one and then re-apply reverted patches.
---
drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/b43legacy.h | 2 ++
drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/dma.c | 7 ++++---
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/b43legacy.h b/drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/b43legacy.h
index 23583be..17a130d 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/b43legacy.h
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/b43legacy.h
@@ -532,6 +532,8 @@ struct b43legacy_dma {
struct b43legacy_dmaring *rx_ring0;
struct b43legacy_dmaring *rx_ring3; /* only on core.rev < 5 */
+
+ u32 translation; /* Routing bits */
};
/* Data structures for PIO transmission, per 80211 core. */
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/dma.c b/drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/dma.c
index c33934a..704ee62 100644
--- a/drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/dma.c
+++ b/drivers/net/wireless/b43legacy/dma.c
@@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ static void op32_fill_descriptor(struct b43legacy_dmaring *ring,
addr = (u32)(dmaaddr & ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK);
addrext = (u32)(dmaaddr & SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
>> SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_SHIFT;
- addr |= ssb_dma_translation(ring->dev->dev);
+ addr |= ring->dev->dma.translation;
ctl = (bufsize - ring->frameoffset)
& B43legacy_DMA32_DCTL_BYTECNT;
if (slot == ring->nr_slots - 1)
@@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ static void op64_fill_descriptor(struct b43legacy_dmaring *ring,
addrhi = (((u64)dmaaddr >> 32) & ~SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK);
addrext = (((u64)dmaaddr >> 32) & SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_MASK)
>> SSB_DMA_TRANSLATION_SHIFT;
- addrhi |= ssb_dma_translation(ring->dev->dev);
+ addrhi |= ring->dev->dma.translation;
if (slot == ring->nr_slots - 1)
ctl0 |= B43legacy_DMA64_DCTL0_DTABLEEND;
if (start)
@@ -709,7 +709,7 @@ static int dmacontroller_setup(struct b43legacy_dmaring *ring)
int err = 0;
u32 value;
u32 addrext;
- u32 trans = ssb_dma_translation(ring->dev->dev);
+ u32 trans = ring->dev->dma.translation;
if (ring->tx) {
if (ring->type == B43legacy_DMA_64BIT) {
@@ -1093,6 +1093,7 @@ int b43legacy_dma_init(struct b43legacy_wldev *dev)
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
#endif
}
+ dma->translation = ssb_dma_translation(dev->dev);
err = -ENOMEM;
/* setup TX DMA channels. */
--
1.7.3.4
On 07/21/2011 05:25 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki<[email protected]>
> ---
> Ideally this should have been applied before:
> ssb: return correct translation bit for 64-bit DMA
>
> This is because mentioned patch added TMSHIGH register read on every
> ssb_dma_translation call which affected performance.
>
> If we can live with affected performance between that 2 commits, please
> just apply this ASAP.
>
> It affected performance (however I don't expect anything like making it
> 90% slower) is not acceptable, please revert mentioned patch, apply this
> one and then re-apply reverted patches.
> ---
Tested-by: Larry Finger <[email protected]>
The patch is fine. In fact, I didn't notice much difference in CPU usage in the
before/after tests; however, my b43legacy device only handles 802.11b, thus
there are not a lot of packets per second.
The failure to boot with the latest pull is more problematic. My bisection try
led to the nonsensical result of a branch commit. I will pull mainline 3.0 to
see if it has the same problem.
Larry
On 07/21/2011 05:25 PM, Rafał Miłecki wrote:
>
> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki<[email protected]>
> ---
> Ideally this should have been applied before:
> ssb: return correct translation bit for 64-bit DMA
>
> This is because mentioned patch added TMSHIGH register read on every
> ssb_dma_translation call which affected performance.
>
> If we can live with affected performance between that 2 commits, please
> just apply this ASAP.
>
> It affected performance (however I don't expect anything like making it
> 90% slower) is not acceptable, please revert mentioned patch, apply this
> one and then re-apply reverted patches.
I will be testing this patch ASAP. Unfortunately, my test box with a b43legacy
device crashes on boot with wireless-testing with a fresh pull this afternoon.
It does boot with commit d36a160 with only 70 commits between. It shouldn't take
too long to sort out.
Larry