Re: commproc.c
From: Dan Malek <hidden>
Date: 2000-03-02 16:22:23
Steve Calfee wrote:
I have been working on doing a 823 USB driver.
I find it interesting there is a sudden interest in the 8xx USB interface....... I recently hired someone to do this work for a customer. We have slave working fine, and host mostly works (some hubs give us fits). The goal is an isochronous connection for some device to stream data over a variety of communication links (it's an 850). We still have a little distance to cover. If someone needs this for a product and wants to invest in speeding up the develpment, let me know. Once it is more useful I suppose it will find its way into the source tree.
m8xx_cpm_dpalloc(uint size)
This is a primitive routine to allocate CPM memory. It allocates size bytes of CPM memory. Even a good citizen that lives by the CPM imposed constraints of alignment
I had some pretty bad hacks for ATM interfaces due to its alignment restrictions, and have since added a second parameter to define alignment. I have played with masks and byte counts, one will win. This will be in an upcoming patch.
.... We also need a m8xx_cpm_free() function to give back CPM memory when we are done.
For lack of a better thought, I have resurrected the old *NIX resource map allocator. Seems to work.
.... I agree that it is a rare use,
It's not only rare, but I don't see any use for it.
.... but if I want to backtrace the interrupted stack from my interrupt routine for profiling...
You have to explain this one to me. I don't understand how passing the register set pointer has any effect on this operation. Show me you need it and we can add it as a parameter. There aren't that many places to change the code. I just didn't need it, and due to your rant about interrupt overhead why add something not needed? -- Dan ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/