[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f14a554c-555f-4830-8be5-13988ddbf0ba@lunn.ch>
Date: Tue, 4 Jun 2024 14:54:20 +0200
From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
To: Yojana Mallik <y-mallik@...com>
Cc: schnelle@...ux.ibm.com, wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com,
diogo.ivo@...mens.com, rdunlap@...radead.org, horms@...nel.org,
vigneshr@...com, rogerq@...com, danishanwar@...com,
pabeni@...hat.com, kuba@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, srk@...com, rogerq@...nel.org,
Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/3] net: ethernet: ti: Register the RPMsg
driver as network device
> >> + u32 buff_slot_size;
> >> + /* Base Address for Tx or Rx shared memory */
> >> + u32 base_addr;
> >> +} __packed;
> >
> > What do you mean by address here? Virtual address, physical address,
> > DMA address? And whos address is this, you have two CPUs here, with no
> > guaranteed the shared memory is mapped to the same address in both
> > address spaces.
> >
> > Andrew
>
> The address referred above is physical address. It is the address of Tx and Rx
> buffer under the control of Linux operating over A53 core. The check if the
> shared memory is mapped to the same address in both address spaces is checked
> by the R5 core.
u32 is too small for a physical address. I'm sure there are systems
with more than 4G of address space. Also, i would not assume both CPUs
map the memory to the same physical address.
Andrew
Powered by blists - more mailing lists