Hi, Sorry for the delayed response hope that it is still of some use.
Ben Collins writes: > On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 05:50:53PM +0100, Richard Mortimer wrote: > > Hi, > > > > David S. Miller writes: > > > > > > Richard Mortimer writes: > > > > static int csr0 = 0x00800000 | 0x9000 > > > > > > Can you try values 0x00e00000 or just plain 0x0? > > > > > > These are the values the dmfe.c driver uses. > > > > Well the Tx timeouts seem to have stopped happening without me doing > > anything! I did try a number of different values - as follows > > Well, I've gotten serial console to an X1 to test out a new set of > debian tftp install images (thanks to Adam McKenna). Boots fine, and > the ethernet devices come up, however I'm having no luck getting things > working. > Can you point me to the tftp install images (are they somewhere to download) I will try them on my setup and see what happens. > Basically pings work, but the tx is recorded as a carrier error. If I > telnet to a known closed port, I get a connection refused, but if I > telnet to a known open port, the connection hangs and I get this to > kernel log: > > UDP: bad checksum. From 217.145.64.251:137 to 64.21.79.60:137 ulen 58 > UDP: bad checksum. From 217.145.64.251:137 to 64.21.79.60:137 ulen 58 > UDP: bad checksum. From 217.145.64.251:137 to 64.21.79.60:137 ulen 58 > UDP: bad checksum. From 159.158.53.9:53 to 64.21.79.60:53 ulen 51 > UDP: bad checksum. From 159.158.53.9:53 to 64.21.79.60:53 ulen 51 > UDP: bad checksum. From 159.158.53.9:53 to 64.21.79.60:53 ulen 51 > Are you seeing this on the X1 or on your other machines? I'm guessing that is was the X1 but I just want to check. Hmmm you say that you were using telnet but the bad checksums are from UDP with services dns (53) and netbios-ns (137). > Note, 64.21.79.60 is the local interface, and the connection I tried was > to 64.21.79.61:80, which is also the nameserver. Sorry I can't get > tcpdumps, since these are base disks, and I've no way to remotely get > anything else on there right now. > A few things to try. How about sending larger ping packets ping -s 1000 or something similar. Was this on 100 base-T or 10 base-T connections? Full or half duplex. I have only got a 10 base-T connection at the moment maybe that has something to do with it. > This is with a current vger CVS kernel (as of a few hours ago). > Yup, that looks to be what I was expecting although I have checked about a week later! > Any ideas, or other tests? Note, I did check to be sure that the test to > clear the MRM was getting done. Cards are detected as so: > > eth0: Davicom DM9102/DM9102A rev 49 at 0x1fe02010100, EEPROM not present, > 00:4C:69:6E:75:79, IRQ 6867584. > eth1: Davicom DM9102/DM9102A rev 49 at 0x1fe02010000, EEPROM not present, > 00:4C:69:6E:75:7A, IRQ 6866880. > (the prom reports 0:3:ba:4:d6:84, weird) > > I'm using eth1, since that is what the person has connected. > One thing to note. It seems that eth0 is what Solaris calls dmfe1 and that eth1 is dmfe0 I guess that this doesn't make a difference. I use eth1 too! -- Richard Mortimer - [EMAIL PROTECTED] dot netscapeonline dot co dot uk