ucc_geth DPRAM alloc error, 2.6.22-rc3

[Joakim Tjernlund]

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 15:26 +0800, Li Yang-r58472 wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: linuxppc-dev-bounces+leoli=freescale.com at ozlabs.org
> [mailto:linuxppc-dev-bounces+leoli=freescale.com at ozlabs.org] On Behalf
> Of
> > 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:
> > > On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 10:31 +0800, Dave Liu wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 16:22 +0200, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > > > 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)
> 
> Looks like you are using virtual FIFO for 100Mbps.
> 
> > 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)