Re: [Fwd: 2.6.10-rc3: tulip-driver: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed]

[Grant Grundler <grundler@parisc-linux.org>]

On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 04:13:10AM +0100, frahm@irsamc.ups-tlse.fr wrote:
> I am sorry, I forgot the modification for "i" in the loop and the udelay:

np...I really appreciate you taking the time to run these.

...
> Here is the output of dmesg (I carefully removed the old tulip module and 
> inserted its new version after each recompilation.)
> 
> --- i=2000/10, udelay(10)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc664010 CSR6 0xff972113)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc06c012 CSR6 0xff970111)

> --- i=4000/10, udelay(10)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc664010 CSR6 0xff972113)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc06c012 CSR6 0xff970111)

> --- i=1300/50, udelay(50)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc664010 CSR6 0xff972113)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc06c012 CSR6 0xff970111)

> --- i=4000/50, udelay(50)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc664010 CSR6 0xff972113)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc06c012 CSR6 0xff970111)

> --- i=1300/100, udelay(100)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc664010 CSR6 0xff972113)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc06c012 CSR6 0xff970111)

> --- i=4000/100, udelay(100)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc664010 CSR6 0xff972113)
> 0000:00:0e.0: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed (CSR5 0xfc06c012 CSR6 0xff970111)

> There is no modification in the values of CSR5 and CSR6.

yeah. :^(
Rules out those two theories pretty much.

> I suppose this implies a Chip defect which is quite plausible
> since a I have cheap Sitecom card which is perhaps not 100%
> compatible with the tulip-driver ? 

Definitely not compatible.

And as noted in the previous email, I don't advise ifdown the NIC
unless you can verify it will not corrupt the memory that was
previously used for RX descriptors and RX buffers.

OTOH, 100BT cards are *so* cheap, it should be possible to replace
if it's not built-in on the motherboard.

Sorry for the bad news and thanks for doing the extra tests.

But still, I'm hopeing for two code changes as a result:
1) include CSR5 and CSR6 in the printk output
2) the date of the tulip driver revision needs to be updated (or dropped).

thanks,
grant