Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:41:00 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> To: Stephen McKay <smckay@internode.on.net> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: dc(4) patch Message-ID: <XFMail.20020920114100.jhb@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <200209201520.g8KFKD332411@dungeon.home>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 20-Sep-2002 Stephen McKay wrote: > On Friday, 20th September 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > >>On 20-Sep-2002 Stephen McKay wrote: >>> Sadly this change is insufficient to satisfy all cards. >> >>Well. I think we can keep the check for TX going idle and just not do >>the check for RX going idle. The original code basically did this until >>you submitted a patch to wpaul@ that fixed a logic bug (used || above >>instead of &&) that effectively didn't do the RX idle check. > > Not quite. Davicom cards (and your card) fail to idle the receiver. > PNIC cards fail to idle the transmitter. So it makes just as much > sense as any other idea to check those bits only on cards that document > that you have to check those bits. My documentation only covers Intel. :-) Hmm, what if we went back then to waiting until at least one of either TX or RX went idle? Did only waiting for one actually break any 21143 cards? -- John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?XFMail.20020920114100.jhb>