Re: [PATCH 0/5] Bring the BusLogic host bus adapter driver up to Y2021

From: Khalid Aziz
Date: Wed Apr 21 2021 - 22:36:52 EST


On 4/20/21 12:02 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2021, Khalid Aziz wrote:
>
>>> Khalid: I have skimmed over these documents and I infer 24-bit addressing
>>> can be verified with any MultiMaster adapter, including ones that do have
>>> 32-bit addressing implemented, by using the legacy Initialize Mailbox HBA
>>> command. That could be used to stop Christoph's recent changes for older
>>> adapter support removal and replace them with proper fixes for whatever
>>> has become broken. Is that something you'd be willing as the driver's
>>> maintainer to look into, or shall I?
>>
>> Do you mean use OpCode 01 (INITIALIZE MAILBOX) to set a 24-bit address
>> for mailbox in place of OpCode 81? Verifying the change would be a
>> challenge. Do you have an old adapter to test it with? If you do, go
>> ahead and make the changes. I will be happy to review. I have only a
>> BT-757 adapter.
>
> Yes, but upon inspection it looks like our driver doesn't use that opcode
> and relies solely on 32-bit Mode Initialize Mailbox (0x81) even with ISA
> devices. That makes sense as documentation indicates the firmware has
> been designed to be unified so that the same binary microcontroller code
> runs across all BusLogic MultiMaster devices.
>
> Anyway given the unified API it should be straightforward to simulate an
> older adapter with a newer one, except for host bus protocol differences.
> So verifying the workaround for broken BT-445S adapters continues to work
> once modernised is not going to be a problem as it can be unconditionally
> activated in a debug environment. That would verify correct DMA bounce
> buffer operation under the new scheme.
>
> Verifying actual ISA operations (third-party DMA, etc.) cannot be made
> this way, but as I understand the issue there is merely with passing data
> structures around and that may not require too much attention beyond
> getting things syntactically correct, which I gather someone forgot to do
> with a change made a while ago. So that should be doable as well.

In theory this sounds reasonable, but without being able to test with a
real hardware I would be concerned about making this change.

>
> NB as noted before I only have a BT-958 readily wired for operation. I
> don't expect I have any other BusLogic hardware, but I may yet have to
> double-check a stash of hardware I have accumulated over the years. But
> that is overseas, so I won't be able to get at it before we're at least
> somewhat closer to normality. If all else fails I could possibly buy one.
>
> I have respun the series now as promised. Does your BT-757 adapter avoid
> the issue with trailing allocation somehow?
>

Well, my only test machine with a legacy PCI slot died some time back. I
have been working on putting together a replacement and have now been
able to get a working machine with a BT-950 adapter. I have not seen
issue with trailing allocation upto 5.12-rc8. I am going to try the top
of tree as well to make sure I do not run into this issue.

--
Khalid