Re: [alsa-devel] USB transfer_buffer allocations on 64bit systems

[Alan Stern]

On Tue, 11 May 2010, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:

> > > > Either the data isn't getting written to the buffer correctly or else
> > > > the buffer isn't getting sent to the device correctly.  Can anybody
> > > > suggest a means of determining which is the case?
> > > 
> > > I can't say anything about this log that including only DMA addresses.
> > > I'm not familiar with how the USB core does DMA stuff. And the USB
> > > stack design that the USB core does DMA stuff (allocating, mappings,
> > > etc) makes debugging DMA issues really difficult.
> > 
> > The DMA stuff is simple enough in this case.  The urb->transfer_buffer
> > address is passed to dma_map_single(), and the DMA address it returns
> > is stored in urb->transfer_dma.  Those are the two values printed out
> > by the debugging patch.
> 
> Is that address (urb->transfer_dma) the same as 
'virt_to_phys(urb->transfer_buffer)'

I don't know.  We didn't print out the value of
virt_to_phys(urb->transfer_buffer).  All I can say is that
urb->transfer_dma is the value returned by dma_map_single().

> (if not, then SWIOTLB is being utilized) and is the dma_sync_* done on the
> urb->transfer_dma (to properly sync the data from the SWIOTLB to the
> transfer_buffer) before you start using the urb->transfer_buffer?

There are no calls to any dma_sync_* routines.  Daniel will have to
check me on this, but I believe that urb->transfer_buffer is filled
before dma_map_single() is called and it isn't touched again until
after dma_unmap_single() (which occurs before urb's completion handler
is called).

Alan Stern

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/