RE: ucc_geth DPRAM alloc error, 2.6.22-rc3

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 15:26 +0800, Li Yang-r58472 wrote:

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+leoli=freescale.com@ozlabs.org

[mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+leoli=freescale.com@ozlabs.org] On Behalf
Of

quoted

Joakim Tjernlund
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 3:18 PM
To: Liu Dave-r63238
Cc: 'linuxppc-dev Development'
Subject: Re: ucc_geth DPRAM alloc error, 2.6.22-rc3

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

quoted

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.

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

 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)

Looks like you are using virtual FIFO for 100Mbps.

quoted

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?

This looks like a bug of rheap.  The main problem is that at system
startup phase, there is an allocation of size 0x400,align 0x1000.
The rheap starts to allocate next buffer from 0x1400, instead of 0x400.

Strangely, that alloc(0x400,align 0x1000) never shows up
in the print out.

For reference I have added the same printout to
my 2.6.20 kernel, here is the initial allocs in that kernel:

MURAM alloc, start:728, size:200(512), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:930, size:208(520), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:b80, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:d00, size:1a0(416), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:ee0, size:40(64), align:20(32)
MURAM alloc, start:1000, size:100(256), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:1200, size:a0(160), align:100(256)
MURAM alloc, start:12d8, size:8(8), align:4(4)
MURAM alloc, start:12e0, size:30(48), align:8(8)
MURAM alloc, start:1380, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:1480, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:1580, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:1680, size:80(128), align:80(128)
MURAM alloc, start:1740, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:17c0, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:1840, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:18c0, size:40(64), align:40(64)
MURAM alloc, start:1910, size:5d(93), align:4(4)