From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262126AbULMEAt (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:00:49 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262198AbULMEAt (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:00:49 -0500 Received: from colo.lackof.org ([198.49.126.79]:61091 "EHLO colo.lackof.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262126AbULMEAj (ORCPT ); Sun, 12 Dec 2004 23:00:39 -0500 Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 20:59:36 -0700 From: Grant Grundler To: frahm@irsamc.ups-tlse.fr Cc: grundler@parisc-linux.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, jgarzik@pobox.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: 2.6.10-rc3: tulip-driver: tulip_stop_rxtx() failed] Message-ID: <20041213035936.GB26501@colo.lackof.org> References: <20041212214803.GB22514@colo.lackof.org> <200412130313.iBD3DAF4004365@albireo.free.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200412130313.iBD3DAF4004365@albireo.free.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-Home-Page: http://www.parisc-linux.org/ Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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