Re: Powerstack II

[Frank Wille <frank%phoenix.owl.de@localhost>]

Jochen Kunz wrote:

>> > IIRC the chipset only supports PCI IO space.
>> Are you sure?
> No. It has been some years since I hacked the Powerstack II. I only
> remember that there was some limitation. Maybe there was IO space, but
> only limited to a small address rage for PeeCee ISA bus style hardware
> like com(4), lpt(4), pckbc(4), ...

There is no problem with io space at all. It's the mem space which doesn't
work.


>> > Do you get interrupts?
>> From the SCSI host? No.
> Hmm. There was something with the on board RAM of esiop(4). I stumbled
> over this on port-hp700. Maybe it is worth a try to forceable en- or
> disable this.

I didn't find anything in the hp700 source. I cannot disable PCI memory for
esiop(4), as the driver will fail then. At least the dmesg shows that it is
happily using the on-board RAM:

esiop0 at pci0 dev 2 function 0: Symbios Logic 53c825a (fast wide scsi)
esiop0: using on-board RAM
esiop0: interrupting at irq 15
esiop0: alloc new tag DSA table at PHY addr 0x540000

Or do you think about disabling esiop(4) completely? Yes, I tried that. But
the system freezes at the same point. I do not reach the askroot prompt.


> But I suspect this is the "PCI DMA does not work" phenomenon.

Or the "PCI memory does not work" phenomenon. :)

I found an old dmesg from one of your tests on the net, and the PCI io/mem
addresses in the output show that you didn't reconfigure the PCI bus. So
your tlp0 still had 0x01002000 assigned for memspace, which is the same
address as you can see in the OFW device node ethernet@4.

After reconfiguration NetBSD assigns a memspace of 0xc0041100, which doesn't
work. But accessing 0x01002000 cannot be correct either, because the 82660
gives the CPU PCI io access at 0x80000000 and PCI mem at 0xc0000000, i.e.
you cannot access the PCI bus at 0x01002000.

Very strange, that your tlp(4) configured correctly - maybe you forced it to
io space?


>> But when I'm configuring the ethernet device to I/O space to make it
>> work, I receive a single IRQ 11.
> In this case you got farer then I was ever.

Not really. ;)


-- 
Frank Wille