From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030367AbXCONA4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:00:56 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030314AbXCONAz (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:00:55 -0400 Received: from aun.it.uu.se ([130.238.12.36]:42009 "EHLO aun.it.uu.se" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030196AbXCONAy (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:00:54 -0400 X-Greylist: delayed 942 seconds by postgrey-1.27 at vger.kernel.org; Thu, 15 Mar 2007 09:00:54 EDT MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17913.16058.137422.920430@alkaid.it.uu.se> Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:40:26 +0100 From: Mikael Pettersson To: Valerie Henson Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Guido Classen , Grant Grundler , Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [patch 1/4] [TULIP] fix for Lite-On 82c168 PNIC In-Reply-To: <20070312095911.430834000@linux.intel.com> References: <20070312093128.577087000@linux.intel.com> <20070312095911.430834000@linux.intel.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.17 under Emacs 20.7.1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Valerie Henson writes: > From: Guido Classen > > This small patch fixes two issues with the Lite-On 82c168 PNIC adapters. > I've tested it with two cards in different machines both chip rev 17 > > The first is the wrong register address CSR6 for writing the MII register > which instead is 0xB8 (this may get a symbol too?) (see similar exisiting code > at line 437) in tulip_core.c > > [Double-checked by Val Henson; yes, 0xB8 is correct register for > autonegotiate on this card.] > > At least by my cards, the the bit 31 from the MII register seems to be > somewhat unstable. This results in reading wrong values from the Phy-Registers > und prevents the card from correct initialization. I've added a litte delay > and an second test of the bit. If the bit is stil cleared the read/write > process has definitely finished. > > [Original patch slightly massaged by Val Henson] Your patch doesn't test for rev 17, so it affects all 82c168 chips. First, I've been using a rev 32 82c168 for years now in a News server that's up 24/7, without any issues. Second, I'm now testing your patch on my rev 32 chip, and so far it seems to not have caused any regressions. Just FYI. /Mikael