ethtool failure with tulip 21143
jeglin at 4pi.com
Mon Dec 17 10:31:32 EST 2001
> >How "broken" is it? With the card in the 6500, the tulip driver sort
>>of works, sometimes. The only error message I get out of it ever is
>>Internal fault: The skbuff addresses do not match in tulip_rx [plus hex
>Which match my idea about broken cache coherency on 6400/6500 machines
>and possibly other derivatives (5x00 ?).
A long time ago (2.2.13 or so), I could not use another card on the
6500 for very long with the de4x5 driver as well. At that time, Paul
provided a patch for the de4x5 driver which fixed the problem. He
also described the issue as a cache coherency problem.
>de4x5 has a tweak to align descriptors so that only one exist per
>cache line. This solved the problem for some 6400 users, but
>that tweak must be enabled by hacking the driver a bit.
Well, I wonder if that was the fix that Paul put in. Some time ago
(early 2.4) I tried the de4x5 driver with this Farallon 10/100 card
but it worked even more poorly than the tulip driver of that time did.
>Try defining CACHE_ALIGN to CAL_32LONG, and DESC_ALIGN to u32 dummy
>(as in the commented out example).
I will look at the de4x5 code again and try this. It's all vaguely
familiar to me... Thanks much!
** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-dev