Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
I haven't tried 2.4.1 yet but I will be soon (prolly today) and I will let you know if I still see problems. Micah ___ The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world -Original Message- From: "Davide Libenzi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Micah Gorrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Andrey Savochkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Romain Kang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Craig I. Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:15 AM Subject: Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD >On Tuesday 30 January 2001 08:14, Micah Gorrell wrote: >> I have been running 2.2 on many machines since its release and have updated >> to the latest version of 2.2 many times. All of these machines have an >> eepro100 and I never saw a single problem with any of them. I updated most >> of my machines to 2.4 over the course of a week and within a day of >> updating each of them showed the problem. This may be pure chance but it >> sounds to me as if it is a difference with the 2.4 kernel. > >I had the same problem on my dual PIII with a dual eepro100 NIC. >2.4.1-pre12 solved the problem ( don't ask me why :) ). > > > >- Davide >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Tuesday 30 January 2001 08:14, Micah Gorrell wrote: > I have been running 2.2 on many machines since its release and have updated > to the latest version of 2.2 many times. All of these machines have an > eepro100 and I never saw a single problem with any of them. I updated most > of my machines to 2.4 over the course of a week and within a day of > updating each of them showed the problem. This may be pure chance but it > sounds to me as if it is a difference with the 2.4 kernel. I had the same problem on my dual PIII with a dual eepro100 NIC. 2.4.1-pre12 solved the problem ( don't ask me why :) ). - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
I have been running 2.2 on many machines since its release and have updated to the latest version of 2.2 many times. All of these machines have an eepro100 and I never saw a single problem with any of them. I updated most of my machines to 2.4 over the course of a week and within a day of updating each of them showed the problem. This may be pure chance but it sounds to me as if it is a difference with the 2.4 kernel. Micah ___ The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world -Original Message- From: "Andrey Savochkin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Micah Gorrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Romain Kang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Craig I. Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:35 AM Subject: Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD >On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote: >> As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had >> serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not >> there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very much >> doubt that it is a configuration problem. I assume that the intel driver >> would prolly fix all of these issues but its not ready for 2.4 yet and its >[snip] > >In the first place, the "no resource" problem is a hardware one. >As far as I understand, it's a buggy (or undocumented) timing requirement >for some revisions. >This problem showed with any kernel, 2.2 or 2.4, until a workaround was >developed. On a single computer suffering from that problem it showed not on >every boot, but about in 30 percents. That's why the reports were different. >So, the kernel version is irrelevant to this problem. > >Best regards > Andrey V. > Savochkin > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
I have been running 2.2 on many machines since its release and have updated to the latest version of 2.2 many times. All of these machines have an eepro100 and I never saw a single problem with any of them. I updated most of my machines to 2.4 over the course of a week and within a day of updating each of them showed the problem. This may be pure chance but it sounds to me as if it is a difference with the 2.4 kernel. Micah ___ The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world -Original Message- From: "Andrey Savochkin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Micah Gorrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Romain Kang" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Craig I. Hagan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 12:35 AM Subject: Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote: As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very much doubt that it is a configuration problem. I assume that the intel driver would prolly fix all of these issues but its not ready for 2.4 yet and its [snip] In the first place, the "no resource" problem is a hardware one. As far as I understand, it's a buggy (or undocumented) timing requirement for some revisions. This problem showed with any kernel, 2.2 or 2.4, until a workaround was developed. On a single computer suffering from that problem it showed not on every boot, but about in 30 percents. That's why the reports were different. So, the kernel version is irrelevant to this problem. Best regards Andrey V. Savochkin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Tuesday 30 January 2001 08:14, Micah Gorrell wrote: I have been running 2.2 on many machines since its release and have updated to the latest version of 2.2 many times. All of these machines have an eepro100 and I never saw a single problem with any of them. I updated most of my machines to 2.4 over the course of a week and within a day of updating each of them showed the problem. This may be pure chance but it sounds to me as if it is a difference with the 2.4 kernel. I had the same problem on my dual PIII with a dual eepro100 NIC. 2.4.1-pre12 solved the problem ( don't ask me why :) ). - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
I haven't tried 2.4.1 yet but I will be soon (prolly today) and I will let you know if I still see problems. Micah ___ The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world -Original Message- From: "Davide Libenzi" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Micah Gorrell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Andrey Savochkin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Romain Kang" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; "Craig I. Hagan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 9:15 AM Subject: Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD On Tuesday 30 January 2001 08:14, Micah Gorrell wrote: I have been running 2.2 on many machines since its release and have updated to the latest version of 2.2 many times. All of these machines have an eepro100 and I never saw a single problem with any of them. I updated most of my machines to 2.4 over the course of a week and within a day of updating each of them showed the problem. This may be pure chance but it sounds to me as if it is a difference with the 2.4 kernel. I had the same problem on my dual PIII with a dual eepro100 NIC. 2.4.1-pre12 solved the problem ( don't ask me why :) ). - Davide - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote: > As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had > serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not > there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very much > doubt that it is a configuration problem. I assume that the intel driver > would prolly fix all of these issues but its not ready for 2.4 yet and its [snip] In the first place, the "no resource" problem is a hardware one. As far as I understand, it's a buggy (or undocumented) timing requirement for some revisions. This problem showed with any kernel, 2.2 or 2.4, until a workaround was developed. On a single computer suffering from that problem it showed not on every boot, but about in 30 percents. That's why the reports were different. So, the kernel version is irrelevant to this problem. Best regards Andrey V. Savochkin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Sergey Kubushin wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > > > Two of my Linux machines use the Intel Ethernet controller on the > > motherboard. These are both SMP machines. I have never, ever, had > > any problems with the eepro100 driver that handles these chips. > > > > I spite of the fact that the driver loops in the ISR, and does other > > things that show poor design, it works so I have not done anything > > to it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." > > > > So, if you have problems with using on-board Intel chip, it's > > unlikely that it's a driver problem. If you have cards on the PCI > > bus, the driver doesn't "know" any difference (PCI is PCI even if > > it's not in a connector). You may find that the problem is caused > > by PCI (mis)configuration since recent kernels use internal PCI > > code. You may find that some bus master device does not have its > > latency set correctly so it's taking over the bus. This can cause > > problems with any high-activity device on the bus, such as a > > network device. > > The older chips (e.g. 82557) work fine. The problem arises when you have the > newer 82559's. They do work, however, if the power management for eepro100 > is enabled in kernel config. It definitely means that those chips are > underinitialized (or overinitialized :)) when it's not. > > --- Ah HA! Thanks for helping to get the word out. So it's new new-fangled EPA stuff that's mucking them up. I suppose if you save a microwatt here and a microwatt there, eventually you are talking about keeping California on-line ;). grep CONFIG_EEPRO100 ./.config CONFIG_EEPRO100=m CONFIG_EEPRO100_PM=y So those who are having problems should try turning on power managment as above. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips). "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
Sergey Kubushin wrote: > > The older chips (e.g. 82557) work fine. The problem arises when you have the > newer 82559's. They do work, however, if the power management for eepro100 > is enabled in kernel config. It definitely means that those chips are > underinitialized (or overinitialized :)) when it's not. Andrey posted a patch last week, which obviously fixes the 82559 problems. It's in Linus' latest 2.4.1-pre release too. I have an 82559 and with the patch there've been no issues here yet - so things are looking good so far. I suggest that instead of having 3 drivers (eepro100, e100, freebsd), people should just work together, look at the goodies of each driver and merge them into one perfect driver. Regards, -Udo. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very much doubt that it is a configuration problem. I assume that the intel driver would prolly fix all of these issues but its not ready for 2.4 yet and its not GPL so no one wants to use it. If there is a good driver that is GPL'ed lets use it. I am not up to the task of porting it myself but I would be glad to help in any way that I can. I do write code, I'm just not familiar enough with the linux kernel. Micah ___ The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world -Original Message- From: "Richard B. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Craig I. Hagan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Romain Kang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:50 AM Subject: Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD >On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Craig I. Hagan wrote: > >> > One approach to the endless eepro100 headaches would be to port >> > the FreeBSD if_fxp driver to Linux. After all, drivers have been >> > ported between these OSs before; e.g., the aic7xxx SCSI adapter. >> > However, I see no evidence that this has been attempted. Can >> > someone tell me what I'm obviously missing? >> >> Had I my druthers, i'd see the intel e100 driver brought into the kernel. It >> seems to work quite well with the eepro100 boards. >> > >Two of my Linux machines use the Intel Ethernet controller on the >motherboard. These are both SMP machines. I have never, ever, had >any problems with the eepro100 driver that handles these chips. > >I spite of the fact that the driver loops in the ISR, and does other >things that show poor design, it works so I have not done anything >to it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." > >So, if you have problems with using on-board Intel chip, it's >unlikely that it's a driver problem. If you have cards on the PCI >bus, the driver doesn't "know" any difference (PCI is PCI even if >it's not in a connector). You may find that the problem is caused >by PCI (mis)configuration since recent kernels use internal PCI >code. You may find that some bus master device does not have its >latency set correctly so it's taking over the bus. This can cause >problems with any high-activity device on the bus, such as a >network device. > >Cheers, >Dick Johnson > >Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips). > >"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of >course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation >obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. > > >- >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in >the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote: > Two of my Linux machines use the Intel Ethernet controller on the > motherboard. These are both SMP machines. I have never, ever, had > any problems with the eepro100 driver that handles these chips. > > I spite of the fact that the driver loops in the ISR, and does other > things that show poor design, it works so I have not done anything > to it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." > > So, if you have problems with using on-board Intel chip, it's > unlikely that it's a driver problem. If you have cards on the PCI > bus, the driver doesn't "know" any difference (PCI is PCI even if > it's not in a connector). You may find that the problem is caused > by PCI (mis)configuration since recent kernels use internal PCI > code. You may find that some bus master device does not have its > latency set correctly so it's taking over the bus. This can cause > problems with any high-activity device on the bus, such as a > network device. The older chips (e.g. 82557) work fine. The problem arises when you have the newer 82559's. They do work, however, if the power management for eepro100 is enabled in kernel config. It definitely means that those chips are underinitialized (or overinitialized :)) when it's not. --- Sergey Kubushin Sr. Unix Administrator CyberBills, Inc.Phone: 702-567-8857 874 American Pacific Dr,Fax:702-567-8890 Henderson, NV, 89014 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Craig I. Hagan wrote: > > One approach to the endless eepro100 headaches would be to port > > the FreeBSD if_fxp driver to Linux. After all, drivers have been > > ported between these OSs before; e.g., the aic7xxx SCSI adapter. > > However, I see no evidence that this has been attempted. Can > > someone tell me what I'm obviously missing? > > Had I my druthers, i'd see the intel e100 driver brought into the kernel. It > seems to work quite well with the eepro100 boards. > Two of my Linux machines use the Intel Ethernet controller on the motherboard. These are both SMP machines. I have never, ever, had any problems with the eepro100 driver that handles these chips. I spite of the fact that the driver loops in the ISR, and does other things that show poor design, it works so I have not done anything to it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." So, if you have problems with using on-board Intel chip, it's unlikely that it's a driver problem. If you have cards on the PCI bus, the driver doesn't "know" any difference (PCI is PCI even if it's not in a connector). You may find that the problem is caused by PCI (mis)configuration since recent kernels use internal PCI code. You may find that some bus master device does not have its latency set correctly so it's taking over the bus. This can cause problems with any high-activity device on the bus, such as a network device. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips). "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
> One approach to the endless eepro100 headaches would be to port > the FreeBSD if_fxp driver to Linux. After all, drivers have been > ported between these OSs before; e.g., the aic7xxx SCSI adapter. > However, I see no evidence that this has been attempted. Can > someone tell me what I'm obviously missing? Had I my druthers, i'd see the intel e100 driver brought into the kernel. It seems to work quite well with the eepro100 boards. -- craig - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
Dumb question: I've been following the freebsd-hackers list for a while, and in that domain, the Intel NICs are the preferred interfaces because they perform well and are very stable. One approach to the endless eepro100 headaches would be to port the FreeBSD if_fxp driver to Linux. After all, drivers have been ported between these OSs before; e.g., the aic7xxx SCSI adapter. However, I see no evidence that this has been attempted. Can someone tell me what I'm obviously missing? Romain Kang Disclaimer: I speak for myself alone, [EMAIL PROTECTED]except when indicated otherwise. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
Dumb question: I've been following the freebsd-hackers list for a while, and in that domain, the Intel NICs are the preferred interfaces because they perform well and are very stable. One approach to the endless eepro100 headaches would be to port the FreeBSD if_fxp driver to Linux. After all, drivers have been ported between these OSs before; e.g., the aic7xxx SCSI adapter. However, I see no evidence that this has been attempted. Can someone tell me what I'm obviously missing? Romain Kang Disclaimer: I speak for myself alone, [EMAIL PROTECTED]except when indicated otherwise. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
One approach to the endless eepro100 headaches would be to port the FreeBSD if_fxp driver to Linux. After all, drivers have been ported between these OSs before; e.g., the aic7xxx SCSI adapter. However, I see no evidence that this has been attempted. Can someone tell me what I'm obviously missing? Had I my druthers, i'd see the intel e100 driver brought into the kernel. It seems to work quite well with the eepro100 boards. -- craig - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Craig I. Hagan wrote: One approach to the endless eepro100 headaches would be to port the FreeBSD if_fxp driver to Linux. After all, drivers have been ported between these OSs before; e.g., the aic7xxx SCSI adapter. However, I see no evidence that this has been attempted. Can someone tell me what I'm obviously missing? Had I my druthers, i'd see the intel e100 driver brought into the kernel. It seems to work quite well with the eepro100 boards. Two of my Linux machines use the Intel Ethernet controller on the motherboard. These are both SMP machines. I have never, ever, had any problems with the eepro100 driver that handles these chips. I spite of the fact that the driver loops in the ISR, and does other things that show poor design, it works so I have not done anything to it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." So, if you have problems with using on-board Intel chip, it's unlikely that it's a driver problem. If you have cards on the PCI bus, the driver doesn't "know" any difference (PCI is PCI even if it's not in a connector). You may find that the problem is caused by PCI (mis)configuration since recent kernels use internal PCI code. You may find that some bus master device does not have its latency set correctly so it's taking over the bus. This can cause problems with any high-activity device on the bus, such as a network device. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips). "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote: Two of my Linux machines use the Intel Ethernet controller on the motherboard. These are both SMP machines. I have never, ever, had any problems with the eepro100 driver that handles these chips. I spite of the fact that the driver loops in the ISR, and does other things that show poor design, it works so I have not done anything to it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." So, if you have problems with using on-board Intel chip, it's unlikely that it's a driver problem. If you have cards on the PCI bus, the driver doesn't "know" any difference (PCI is PCI even if it's not in a connector). You may find that the problem is caused by PCI (mis)configuration since recent kernels use internal PCI code. You may find that some bus master device does not have its latency set correctly so it's taking over the bus. This can cause problems with any high-activity device on the bus, such as a network device. The older chips (e.g. 82557) work fine. The problem arises when you have the newer 82559's. They do work, however, if the power management for eepro100 is enabled in kernel config. It definitely means that those chips are underinitialized (or overinitialized :)) when it's not. --- Sergey Kubushin Sr. Unix Administrator CyberBills, Inc.Phone: 702-567-8857 874 American Pacific Dr,Fax:702-567-8890 Henderson, NV, 89014 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very much doubt that it is a configuration problem. I assume that the intel driver would prolly fix all of these issues but its not ready for 2.4 yet and its not GPL so no one wants to use it. If there is a good driver that is GPL'ed lets use it. I am not up to the task of porting it myself but I would be glad to help in any way that I can. I do write code, I'm just not familiar enough with the linux kernel. Micah ___ The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world -Original Message- From: "Richard B. Johnson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Craig I. Hagan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: "Romain Kang" [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Monday, January 29, 2001 10:50 AM Subject: Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Craig I. Hagan wrote: One approach to the endless eepro100 headaches would be to port the FreeBSD if_fxp driver to Linux. After all, drivers have been ported between these OSs before; e.g., the aic7xxx SCSI adapter. However, I see no evidence that this has been attempted. Can someone tell me what I'm obviously missing? Had I my druthers, i'd see the intel e100 driver brought into the kernel. It seems to work quite well with the eepro100 boards. Two of my Linux machines use the Intel Ethernet controller on the motherboard. These are both SMP machines. I have never, ever, had any problems with the eepro100 driver that handles these chips. I spite of the fact that the driver loops in the ISR, and does other things that show poor design, it works so I have not done anything to it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." So, if you have problems with using on-board Intel chip, it's unlikely that it's a driver problem. If you have cards on the PCI bus, the driver doesn't "know" any difference (PCI is PCI even if it's not in a connector). You may find that the problem is caused by PCI (mis)configuration since recent kernels use internal PCI code. You may find that some bus master device does not have its latency set correctly so it's taking over the bus. This can cause problems with any high-activity device on the bus, such as a network device. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips). "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Sergey Kubushin wrote: On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote: Two of my Linux machines use the Intel Ethernet controller on the motherboard. These are both SMP machines. I have never, ever, had any problems with the eepro100 driver that handles these chips. I spite of the fact that the driver loops in the ISR, and does other things that show poor design, it works so I have not done anything to it. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it..." So, if you have problems with using on-board Intel chip, it's unlikely that it's a driver problem. If you have cards on the PCI bus, the driver doesn't "know" any difference (PCI is PCI even if it's not in a connector). You may find that the problem is caused by PCI (mis)configuration since recent kernels use internal PCI code. You may find that some bus master device does not have its latency set correctly so it's taking over the bus. This can cause problems with any high-activity device on the bus, such as a network device. The older chips (e.g. 82557) work fine. The problem arises when you have the newer 82559's. They do work, however, if the power management for eepro100 is enabled in kernel config. It definitely means that those chips are underinitialized (or overinitialized :)) when it's not. --- Ah HA! Thanks for helping to get the word out. So it's new new-fangled EPA stuff that's mucking them up. I suppose if you save a microwatt here and a microwatt there, eventually you are talking about keeping California on-line ;). grep CONFIG_EEPRO100 ./.config CONFIG_EEPRO100=m CONFIG_EEPRO100_PM=y So those who are having problems should try turning on power managment as above. Cheers, Dick Johnson Penguin : Linux version 2.4.0 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips). "Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation obtained from the Micro$oft help desk. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
Sergey Kubushin wrote: The older chips (e.g. 82557) work fine. The problem arises when you have the newer 82559's. They do work, however, if the power management for eepro100 is enabled in kernel config. It definitely means that those chips are underinitialized (or overinitialized :)) when it's not. Andrey posted a patch last week, which obviously fixes the 82559 problems. It's in Linus' latest 2.4.1-pre release too. I have an 82559 and with the patch there've been no issues here yet - so things are looking good so far. I suggest that instead of having 3 drivers (eepro100, e100, freebsd), people should just work together, look at the goodies of each driver and merge them into one perfect driver. Regards, -Udo. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: eepro100 - Linux vs. FreeBSD
On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 11:06:11AM -0700, Micah Gorrell wrote: As stated in a number of previous messages to this list many people have had serious problems with the eepro100 driver in 2.4. These problems where not there in 2.2 and it is not a select few machines showing this so I very much doubt that it is a configuration problem. I assume that the intel driver would prolly fix all of these issues but its not ready for 2.4 yet and its [snip] In the first place, the "no resource" problem is a hardware one. As far as I understand, it's a buggy (or undocumented) timing requirement for some revisions. This problem showed with any kernel, 2.2 or 2.4, until a workaround was developed. On a single computer suffering from that problem it showed not on every boot, but about in 30 percents. That's why the reports were different. So, the kernel version is irrelevant to this problem. Best regards Andrey V. Savochkin - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
