On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 00:07, Jeff Garzik wrote:
On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0300, Andrey Nekrasov wrote:
> > or "e100" driver and with patch:
> >
> >
> > --- drivers/net/e100/e100.h- Wed Dec 4 15:16:08 2002
> > +++ drivers/net/e100/e100.h Wed Dec 4 15:16:20 2002
> > @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
> >
> > #define E100_MAX_NIC 16
> >
> > -#define E100_MAX_SCB_WAIT 100 /* Max udelays in wait_scb */
> > +#define E100_MAX_SCB_WAIT 5000 /* Max udelays in wait_scb */
> > #define E100_MAX_CU_IDLE_WAIT 50 /* Max udelays in wait_cus_idle
*/
>
>
>
>
> No, don't use this patch, it's awful. The latest Marcelo tree in
> BitKeeper has this fixed... the right way. See the following e100
> patch, which is what Intel emailed me, and what I merged into the
> Marcelo tree.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
> # --------------------------------------------
> # 03/01/16 [email protected] 1.884.23.2
> # [netdrvr e100] udelay a better way
> # * Bug Fix: TCO workaround after hard reset of controller to wait for TCO
> # traffic to settle. Workaround requires issuing a CU load base command
> # after hard reset, followed by a wait for scb and finally a wait for
> # TCO traffic bit to clear. Affects 82559s and above wired to SMBus.
> # --------------------------------------------
> #
> diff -Nru a/drivers/net/e100/e100_main.c b/drivers/net/e100/e100_main.c
> --- a/drivers/net/e100/e100_main.c Fri Jan 24 11:06:35 2003
> +++ b/drivers/net/e100/e100_main.c Fri Jan 24 11:06:35 2003
> @@ -196,6 +196,7 @@
> char *e100_get_brand_msg(struct e100_private *);
> static u8 e100_pci_setup(struct pci_dev *, struct e100_private *);
> static u8 e100_sw_init(struct e100_private *);
> +static void e100_tco_walkaround(struct e100_private *);
> static unsigned char e100_alloc_space(struct e100_private *);
> static void e100_dealloc_space(struct e100_private *);
> static int e100_alloc_tcb_pool(struct e100_private *);
> @@ -213,7 +214,7 @@
>
> static unsigned char e100_clr_cntrs(struct e100_private *);
> static unsigned char e100_load_microcode(struct e100_private *);
> -static unsigned char e100_hw_init(struct e100_private *, u32);
> +static unsigned char e100_hw_init(struct e100_private *);
> static unsigned char e100_setup_iaaddr(struct e100_private *, u8 *);
> static unsigned char e100_update_stats(struct e100_private *bdp);
>
> @@ -1265,7 +1266,7 @@
> /* read NIC's part number */
> e100_rd_pwa_no(bdp);
>
> - if (!e100_hw_init(bdp, PORT_SOFTWARE_RESET)) {
> + if (!e100_hw_init(bdp)) {
> printk(KERN_ERR "e100: hw init failed\n");
> return false;
> }
> @@ -1314,10 +1315,46 @@
> return 1;
> }
>
> +static void __devinit
> +e100_tco_walkaround(struct e100_private *bdp)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + /* Do software reset */
> + e100_sw_reset(bdp, PORT_SOFTWARE_RESET);
> +
> + /* Do a dummy LOAD CU BASE command. */
> + /* This gets us out of pre-driver to post-driver. */
> + e100_exec_cmplx(bdp, 0, SCB_CUC_LOAD_BASE);
> +
> + /* Wait 20 msec for reset to take effect */
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + schedule_timeout(HZ / 50);
> +
> + /* disable interrupts since they are enabled */
> + /* after device reset */
> + e100_disable_clear_intr(bdp);
> +
> + /* Wait for command to be cleared up to 1 sec */
> + for (i=0; i<1000; i++) {
> + if (!readb(&bdp->scb->scb_cmd_low))
> + break;
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + schedule_timeout(HZ / 1000);
> + }
> +
> + /* Wait for TCO request bit in PMDR register to be clear */
> + for (i=0; i<500; i++) {
> + if (!(readb(&bdp->scb->scb_ext.d101m_scb.scb_pmdr) & BIT_1))
> + break;
> + set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> + schedule_timeout(HZ / 1000);
> + }
> +}
> +
> /**
> * e100_hw_init - initialized tthe hardware
> * @bdp: atapter's private data struct
> - * @reset_cmd: s/w reset or selective reset
> *
> * This routine performs a reset on the adapter, and configures the
adapter.
> * This includes configuring the 82557 LAN controller, validating and
setting
> @@ -1329,13 +1366,16 @@
> * false - If the adapter failed initialization
> */
> unsigned char __devinit
> -e100_hw_init(struct e100_private *bdp, u32 reset_cmd)
> +e100_hw_init(struct e100_private *bdp)
> {
> if (!e100_phy_init(bdp))
> return false;
>
> - /* Issue a software reset to the e100 */
> - e100_sw_reset(bdp, reset_cmd);
> + e100_sw_reset(bdp, PORT_SELECTIVE_RESET);
> +
> + /* Only 82559 or above needs TCO walkaround */
> + if (bdp->rev_id >= D101MA_REV_ID)
> + e100_tco_walkaround(bdp);
>
> /* Load the CU BASE (set to 0, because we use linear mode) */
> if (!e100_wait_exec_cmplx(bdp, 0, SCB_CUC_LOAD_BASE, 0))
>
Jeff,
Which release your patch applies for ? I failed to compile it on 2.5.52. It
seems that function e100_disable_clear_intr is not defined.
Michael
Not speaking for Intel, options are my own.
Fu, Michael wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-01-25 at 00:07, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2003 at 05:57:55PM +0300, Andrey Nekrasov wrote:
>
>>>or "e100" driver and with patch:
>>>
>>>
>>>--- drivers/net/e100/e100.h- Wed Dec 4 15:16:08 2002
>>>+++ drivers/net/e100/e100.h Wed Dec 4 15:16:20 2002
>>>@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
>>>
>>> #define E100_MAX_NIC 16
>>>
>>>-#define E100_MAX_SCB_WAIT 100 /* Max udelays in wait_scb */
>>>+#define E100_MAX_SCB_WAIT 5000 /* Max udelays in wait_scb */
>>> #define E100_MAX_CU_IDLE_WAIT 50 /* Max udelays in wait_cus_idle
> Which release your patch applies for ? I failed to compile it on 2.5.52. It
> seems that function e100_disable_clear_intr is not defined.
This wasn't my patch :) But anyway, 2.4.x series is actually ahead of
2.5.x in terms of e100 bugfixes, owing to Linus's vacation. If you use
BitKeeper, you can obtain the latest by issuing
bk pull http://linux.bkbits.net/linux-2.4
or wait another day or so for Marcelo to release 2.4.21-pre4 :)
The 2.5 and 2.4 versions of e100 are kept in sync, so it is trivial to
take 2.4's e100 and use it in 2.5 [and vice versa].
Jeff
"Fu, Michael" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Jeff,
>
> Which release your patch applies for ? I failed to compile it on 2.5.52. It
> seems that function e100_disable_clear_intr is not defined.
Fu? Why are you working against 2.5.52? kexec should be fine
against later kernels.
Eric