Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2017 11:11:49 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 211219] NIC status does not pass into a state of "no carrier" after disconnecting the cable. Message-ID: <bug-211219-2472-4sXW3DkBtS@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-211219-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-211219-2472@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D211219 --- Comment #18 from Franco Fichtner <franco@opnsense.org> --- The second line in the if statement still differs in the way introduced by = the original commit causing the regression: Original Intel driver and requested in this this PR/attached commit: ims_mask |=3D EM_MSIX_MASK; Current state on all branches: ims_mask |=3D adapter->ims; In our conversations you asked me which of the two lines were needed, becau= se the chip documentation wasn't clear. The testing result for a good result (for two distinct devices I have) was: if (hw->mac.type =3D=3D e1000_82574) { E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, EM_EIAC, adapter->ims); }=20 The current FreeBSD state was changed to read this: if (hw->mac.type =3D=3D e1000_82574) { E1000_WRITE_REG(hw, EM_EIAC, adapter->ims); ims_mask |=3D adapter->ims; } Which still differs from the good tested result or the original Intel state. Either the second line should be dropped or changed to how it reads in the Intel driver. Cheers, Franco --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-211219-2472-4sXW3DkBtS>