> -----Original Message----- > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:58 PM > To: Li Yang > Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Increase virtual FIFOs in ucc_geth. > > > On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 11:11 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 17:49 +0800, Li Yang wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:46 AM > > > > To: Li Yang-r58472 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Netdev > > > > Cc: Joakim Tjernlund > > > > Subject: [PATCH] Increase virtual FIFOs in ucc_geth. > > > > > > > > Increase UCC_GETH_URFS_INIT to 1152 and > > > > UCC_GETH_UTFS_INIT to 896 to avoid HW Overrun/Underrun. > > > > > > Please be noted that these values are only used for > 10/100Mbps speed. > > > Did you get Overrun in 10/100M mode? > > > > I get both TX Underrun and RX overrun in 100Mbps, FD, just > > by running a tftp transfer. It feels like the URFET and/or URSFET > > isn't working. Why I don't know. CPU is MPC832x > > > > Jocke > > I am a bit confused how the RBMR and TBMR is supposed to work. In > ucc_get there is: > out_be32(&ugeth->p_tx_glbl_pram->tstate, ((u32) > function_code) << 24); > ugeth->p_rx_glbl_pram->rstate = function_code; > First, should not the rx part look the same as tx?
To be consist with the chip RM, type for tstate is u32 and type for rstate is u8. Personally I don't think that it will be different to access tstate as u8, but it will be more readable to be the same as manual. Well, rstate probably should be changed to use IO accessor too. > Does programing rstate/tstate replace RBMR and TBMR? RBMR and TBMR? These are for other protocols. - Leo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
