Re: ucc_geth DPRAM alloc error, 2.6.22-rc3

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 09:03 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:31 +0800, Dave Liu wrote:

quoted

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 16:22 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:

quoted

Trying to bring up a third ethernet i/f(ifconfig eth2 up) on
a Freescale 832x CPU gives me this:
 ifconfig eth2 up
 ucc_geth_startup: Can not allocate DPRAM memory for p_thread_data_tx.
 eth2: Cannot configure net device, aborting.
 SIOCSIFFLAGS: Cannot allocate memory

This worked in 2.6.20

Could you print the MURAM memory usage for debug?
eg. start address and size.

-d

Like this?

redid with all hex, decimal within()
MURAM alloc, start:1400, size:200(512), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:1608, size:208(520), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:1880, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:1a00, size:1a0(416), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:1bc0, size:40(64), align:20(32)
MURAM alloc, start:1d00, size:100(256), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:1f00, size:a0(160), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:1fc0, size:c(12), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:2000, size:30(48), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:2080, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:2180, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:2280, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:2380, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:2440, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:24c0, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:2540, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:25c0, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:262c, size:5d(93), align:4(4)

MURAM alloc, start:2630, size:200(512), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:2838, size:208(520), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:2a80, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:2c00, size:1a0(416), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:2de0, size:40(64), align:20(32)
MURAM alloc, start:2f00, size:100(256), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:3100, size:a0(160), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:3200, size:c(12), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:3228, size:30(48), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:3280, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:3380, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:3480, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:3580, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:3680, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:3700, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:3780, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:3800, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:3858, size:5d(93), align:4(4)

MURAM alloc, start:3858, size:200(512), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:3a60, size:208(520), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:3c80, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:fffffff4, size:1a0(416), align:100(256)

some comments:

With these aligments, won't you waste alot of MURAM?

Looking at the 2 first allocs:
  MURAM alloc, start:1400, size:200(512), align:8(8)
  MURAM alloc, start:1608, size:208(520), align:8(8)
shouldn't the second alloc have 0x1600 as start address?

 Jocke