[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [microblaze-uclinux] DMA and cache
Jim Van Vorst wrote:
I'm using 2.6 currently. Am I better off moving to 2.4 until this gets
Hard to say - I don't think there's a lot of work to get this going,
it's just still in the queue.
Also, does the u-boot or kernel build care about C_BANK0_HIGHADDR, or is
just for the bitstream?
Hmm, good question. I'd have to go digging. The uncached shadow thing
was a bit of a hack that I did in 2.4 to try to improve ethernet DMA
performance (avoiding a big cache invalidate loop after receving each
It got copied into 2.6 when lynuxworks hacked out the initial port, but
I don't think it's ever been tested.
My advice is probably to stick with 2.6, and either debug/test the
UNCACHED_SHADOW support as is, or put a dcache_invalidate call into your
driver to make sure the cache is clean.
microblaze-uclinux mailing list
Project Home Page : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~jwilliams/mblaze-uclinux
Mailing List Archive : http://www.itee.uq.edu.au/~listarch/microblaze-uclinux/