Bill Fink wrote:
If the receive direction uses a different GigE NIC that's part of the
same quad-GigE, all is fine:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ nuttcp -f-beta -Itx -w2m 192.168.6.79 & nuttcp -f-beta
-Irx -r -w2m 192.168.5.79
tx: 1186.5051 MB / 10.05 sec = 990.2250 Mbps 12 %TX 13 %RX 0 retrans
rx:
.
Agreed, there is still a receive unit hang in the last version that I got from
David Acker.
Auke
Yes, I have not had much time to work on it. :-(
In testing, I was also able to get crashes which I believe are from receive skb
corruption.
It doesn't ever appear in our normal use te
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
The people who need a LE network driver can use Christian's driver,
as Christian's driver works in LE just fine. The people who care
about LE support can add LE support to the driver that Krzysztof wrote.
I don't think that not supporting LE is a reason not to merge
Krz
David Acker wrote:
So far my testing has shown both the original and the new version of the
S-bit patch work in that no corruption seemed to occur over long term
runs.
I spoke too soon. Further testing has not gone well. If I use the
default settings for CPU saver and drop the receive pool
David Acker wrote:
Milton Miller wrote:
In commit d52df4a35af569071fda3f4eb08e47cc7023f094, the description
talks about emulating another driver by setting addtional bits and
the being unable to test when submitted. Seeing the & operator to
set more bits made me suspicious, and indeed the
Milton Miller wrote:
In commit d52df4a35af569071fda3f4eb08e47cc7023f094, the description
talks about emulating another driver by setting addtional bits and
the being unable to test when submitted. Seeing the & operator to
set more bits made me suspicious, and indeed the bits are defined
in posit
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Well the IT8152G+PXA255 combination used on the SBC we tried a couple of
years ago did not work. The PCI bus had errors and the SBC maker gave
up trying to fix it. We switched to a Geode SC1200 based board instead
which works fine PCI wise.
I don't think this is it.
Lennart Sorensen wrote:
Which PCI host controller are you using with the PXA255? We tried using
a PXA255 based system with a PCI controller a couple of years ago and
have to change to a different cpu in the end due to the PCI controller
simply not being valid PCI. The PXA255 wasn't designed for
Kok, Auke wrote:
Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 06:39:29AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
1) Does e100 driver work on ARM?
FWIW, e100 seems to work okay for me on an intel ixp2400 (xscale based)
board, an ixp2850 (xscale based) board and an ixp2350 (xscale3 based)
board. ixp235
9 matches
Mail list logo
