PPC4xx enet driver problem (version 2.0)
DaveyWu
daveywu at transengines.com
Sun Dec 14 20:24:26 EST 2003
Stefan,
Thanks for your reply. My bootloader is OpenBios. I think the problem is not caused by the wrong MAC addresses, because when I boot the 2.4.18 kernel the MAC address of eth1 is same 00:00:00:00:00:00 but both EMACs work well.
Our engineers is continuing to work with the problem. I would like to share any achievements about the problem with you.
Best regards,
Davey Wu
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Roese" <stefan.roese at esd-electronics.com>
To: "'DaveyWu'" <daveywu at transengines.com>; "'Linuxppc-Embedded'" <linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org>; <benh at kernel.crashing.org>; <akuster at mvista.com>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 6:56 PM
Subject: RE: PPC4xx enet driver problem (version 2.0)
> Davey!
>
> No, we didn't solve this problem so far. Eugene did some tests on an
> ppc440 board and had no problems with the multiple enet devices. So it
> seems to be 405ep related! I still have to send some debug output to
> Eugene (hopefully today)!
>
> By the way: Did you notice that your MAC-address of the 2nd ethernet
> channel (eth1) is 00:00:00:00:00:00? This is wrong and probably a
> problem in passing MAC-addresses from your bootloader to linux. What
> bootloader are you using? U-Boot/OpenBios?
>
> Best regards,
> Stefan.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: DaveyWu [mailto:daveywu at transengines.com]
> > Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 3:40 AM
> > To: Stefan Roese; Linuxppc-Embedded;
> > benh at kernel.crashing.org; akuster at mvista.com
> > Subject: Re: PPC4xx enet driver problem (version 2.0)
> >
> >
> > Hi Stefan,
> > I have suffered the same problem when I am trying swtich
> > to 2.4.22 from 2.4.18 on IBM405ep board. Following is the
> > output on my board:
> >
> > # ifconfig eth0 down
> > # ifconfig eth1 down
> > # ifconfig eth0 192.168.1.1
> > eth0: adjust to link, speed: 100, duplex: 1, opened: 1
> > eth0: Speed: 100, Full duplex.
> > # ping 192.168.1.123
> > PING 192.168.1.123 (192.168.1.123): 56 data bytes
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.123: icmp_seq=0 ttl=128 time=5.2 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.123: icmp_seq=1 ttl=128 time=2.8 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.123: icmp_seq=2 ttl=128 time=2.7 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.123: icmp_seq=3 ttl=128 time=2.6 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.123: icmp_seq=4 ttl=128 time=2.7 ms
> > 64 bytes from 192.168.1.123: icmp_seq=5 ttl=128 time=2.7 ms
> >
> > --- 192.168.1.123 ping statistics ---
> > 6 packets transmitted, 6 packets received, 0% packet loss
> > round-trip min/avg/max = 2.6/3.1/5.2 ms # ifconfig eth1 192.168.2.1
> > eth1: adjust to link, speed: 100, duplex: 1, opened: 1
> > eth1: Speed: 100, Full duplex.
> > SIOCSIFFLAGS: Device or resource busy
> > # ifconfig
> > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:04:AC:E3:15:5E
> > inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255
> > Mask:255.255.255.0
> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:104 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:7 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> > RX bytes:10027 (9.7 kiB) TX bytes:630 (630.0 iB)
> > Interrupt:15
> >
> > lo Link encap:Local Loopback
> > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
> > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
> > RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> > RX bytes:0 (0.0 iB) TX bytes:0 (0.0 iB)
> >
> > # ping 192.168.1.123
> > PING 192.168.1.123 (192.168.1.123): 56 data bytes
> >
> > --- 192.168.1.123 ping statistics ---
> > 25 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss
> > # ifconfig -a
> > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:04:AC:E3:15:5E
> > inet addr:192.168.1.1 Bcast:192.168.1.255
> > Mask:255.255.255.0
> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:104 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:15 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> > RX bytes:10027 (9.7 kiB) TX bytes:966 (966.0 iB)
> > Interrupt:15
> >
> > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:00:00:00:00:00
> > inet addr:192.168.2.1 Bcast:192.168.2.255
> > Mask:255.255.255.0
> > BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> > RX bytes:0 (0.0 iB) TX bytes:0 (0.0 iB)
> > Interrupt:17
> >
> > lo Link encap:Local Loopback
> > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
> > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
> > RX packets:25 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:25 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> > RX bytes:2800 (2.7 kiB) TX bytes:2800 (2.7 kiB)
> >
> > #
> > Have you already solved the problem?
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Stefan Roese" <stefan.roese at esd-electronics.com>
> > To: "Linuxppc-Embedded"
> > <linuxppc-embedded at lists.linuxppc.org>;
> > <benh at kernel.crashing.org>; <akuster at mvista.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 7:29 PM
> > Subject: PPC4xx enet driver problem (version 2.0)
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Hello!
> > >
> > > We are trying to switch to the 2.4.23 linuxppc_2_4_devel
> > kernel (from
> > > 2.4.21) and experience a problem with the "new" ethernet driver for
> > > the ibm ppc4xx (version 2.0 from Benjamin Herrenschmidt). On our
> > > boards with only one active enet interface we have no problems. But
> > > our PPC405EP boards with 2 active enet devices, the traffic stops
> > > completely upon initializing the 2nd devices (emac_reset_configure).
> > >
> > > Has anybody experienced similar problems? Has anybody seen
> > this driver
> > > working properly with more than one ppc4xx enet devices (especially
> > > ppc405ep)?
> > >
> > > With the previous driver (from linuxppc_2_4_devel 2.4.21
> > maintained by
> > > mvista) we had no problems with 2 enet interfaces on the
> > ppc405ep so
> > > far!
> > >
> > > By the way: What is the future of the ppc4xx enet driver. I
> > found that
> > > the 2.5 kernel has a newer mvista driver included
> > (modifications for
> > > 440gx, etc.). Is the driver from 2.4.23 a dead end?
> > >
> > > Thanks and best regards,
> > > Stefan.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
More information about the Linuxppc-embedded
mailing list