I managed to compiled e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14, I can also load it
successfully.
With the E1000_IMS_RXSEQ bit set in IMS_ENABLE_MASK I get endless interrupts
and the computer freezes, without this bit set it works but I cannot receive
or send anything.
Does any one have a clue?.
Thanks
Ofer
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ofer Fryman wrote:
> I managed to compiled e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14, I can also load it
> successfully.
> With the E1000_IMS_RXSEQ bit set in IMS_ENABLE_MASK I get endless interrupts
> and the computer freezes, without this bit set it works but I cannot receive
> or send anything.
Intel refuses to provide complete documentation for any of their ethernet
cards. I recommend purchasing alternative products from vendors like 3com
and National Semiconduct who are cooperative in providing data needed by
the development community.
-ben
I need a giga fiber PMC cards for linux2.0.36-pre14, the only cards I know
are either Intel based or level-one lxt-1001 card, the level-one lxt-1001
has very bad performance so I cannot use it.
Thanks,
Ofer
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 5:31 PM
To: Ofer Fryman
Cc: '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Intel-e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ofer Fryman wrote:
> I managed to compiled e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14, I can also load it
> successfully.
> With the E1000_IMS_RXSEQ bit set in IMS_ENABLE_MASK I get endless
interrupts
> and the computer freezes, without this bit set it works but I cannot
receive
> or send anything.
Intel refuses to provide complete documentation for any of their ethernet
cards. I recommend purchasing alternative products from vendors like 3com
and National Semiconduct who are cooperative in providing data needed by
the development community.
-ben
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ofer Fryman wrote:
> I need a giga fiber PMC cards for linux2.0.36-pre14, the only cards I know
> are either Intel based or level-one lxt-1001 card, the level-one lxt-1001
> has very bad performance so I cannot use it.
Well, 2.0 kernels are sufficiently old that there's little likelyhood of
newer gige drivers supporting them unless you do the work yourself. My
personal recommendation would be moving to a 2.2 or 2.4 kernel and using
an Acenic.
-bem
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ofer Fryman wrote:
>
> > I managed to compiled e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14, I can also load it
> > successfully.
> > With the E1000_IMS_RXSEQ bit set in IMS_ENABLE_MASK I get endless interrupts
> > and the computer freezes, without this bit set it works but I cannot receive
> > or send anything.
>
> Intel refuses to provide complete documentation for any of their ethernet
> cards. I recommend purchasing alternative products from vendors like 3com
> and National Semiconduct who are cooperative in providing data needed by
> the development community.
>
Well Intel has been a continual contributor to Linux and BSD. Somebody
is not getting to the right person. There are lazy people at all
companies.
Here is a compressed `grep` of linux-kernel mail headers from Intel
who had something useful to say during the past year. Maybe you
can ask one of them for the information you need? You just need to
find an advocate at a big company.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 [email protected] wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ofer Fryman wrote:
> >
> > > I managed to compiled e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14, I can also load it
> > > successfully.
> > > With the E1000_IMS_RXSEQ bit set in IMS_ENABLE_MASK I get endless interrupts
> > > and the computer freezes, without this bit set it works but I cannot receive
> > > or send anything.
> >
> > Intel refuses to provide complete documentation for any of their ethernet
> > cards. I recommend purchasing alternative products from vendors like 3com
> > and National Semiconduct who are cooperative in providing data needed by
> > the development community.
> >
>
> Well Intel has been a continual contributor to Linux and BSD. Somebody
> is not getting to the right person. There are lazy people at all
> companies.
Sorry, I don't believe that that this is correct in this case. I spoke on the
telephone with the "Manager for Open Source Systems", and the concept of
releasing documents to that a driver could be written whose source would be
available was a concept too far. He kept on asking about NDAs- I kept on
saying, yes, I'll sign an NDA (presumably so knowledge of advanced features,
such as VLAN taggging, e.g., would not be released if they did not want it to
be)- but the basic driver source would have to be OPEN! (this was for *BSD,
but that's the same as linux in this case- we *all* want the damned source
open). No meeting of minds. I have been trying this on and off for two years
so that I can properly support the Wiseman && Livengood chipsets in *BSD. No
luck, ergo, reverse engineering of what little they release with the Linux
driver is the order of the day still. The Linux driver, btw, is pretty clearly
a port of an NT driver- which is quite amusing.
FWIW.....I just think that the overall company policy within Intel, much like
that of NetApp and others, is, "Open Source? Well, maybe, err,umm.. "... It's
just not that important to them (as a company, they think). That said- if you
can get access to said documentation (which I understand comes in a certain
notebook that indicates releasing outside of Intel is a firing offense)- more
power to you!
-matt
Thanks Richard,
I guess I have know choice but to try your suggestion.
Ofer
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 6:02 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Ofer Fryman; '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Intel-e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 [email protected] wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ofer Fryman wrote:
>
> > I managed to compiled e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14, I can also load it
> > successfully.
> > With the E1000_IMS_RXSEQ bit set in IMS_ENABLE_MASK I get endless
interrupts
> > and the computer freezes, without this bit set it works but I cannot
receive
> > or send anything.
>
> Intel refuses to provide complete documentation for any of their ethernet
> cards. I recommend purchasing alternative products from vendors like 3com
> and National Semiconduct who are cooperative in providing data needed by
> the development community.
>
Well Intel has been a continual contributor to Linux and BSD. Somebody
is not getting to the right person. There are lazy people at all
companies.
Here is a compressed `grep` of linux-kernel mail headers from Intel
who had something useful to say during the past year. Maybe you
can ask one of them for the information you need? You just need to
find an advocate at a big company.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.
On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, Ofer Fryman wrote:
> > >
> > > > I managed to compiled e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14, I can also load it
> > > > successfully.
> > > > With the E1000_IMS_RXSEQ bit set in IMS_ENABLE_MASK I get endless interrupts
> > > > and the computer freezes, without this bit set it works but I cannot receive
> > > > or send anything.
> > >
> > > Intel refuses to provide complete documentation for any of their ethernet
> > > cards. I recommend purchasing alternative products from vendors like 3com
> > > and National Semiconduct who are cooperative in providing data needed by
> > > the development community.
> > >
> >
> > Well Intel has been a continual contributor to Linux and BSD. Somebody
> > is not getting to the right person. There are lazy people at all
> > companies.
>
> Sorry, I don't believe that that this is correct in this case. I spoke on the
> telephone with the "Manager for Open Source Systems", and the concept of
> releasing documents to that a driver could be written whose source would be
> available was a concept too far. He kept on asking about NDAs- I kept on
> saying, yes, I'll sign an NDA (presumably so knowledge of advanced features,
> such as VLAN taggging, e.g., would not be released if they did not want it to
> be)- but the basic driver source would have to be OPEN! (this was for *BSD,
> but that's the same as linux in this case- we *all* want the damned source
> open). No meeting of minds. I have been trying this on and off for two years
> so that I can properly support the Wiseman && Livengood chipsets in *BSD. No
> luck, ergo, reverse engineering of what little they release with the Linux
> driver is the order of the day still. The Linux driver, btw, is pretty clearly
> a port of an NT driver- which is quite amusing.
>
> FWIW.....I just think that the overall company policy within Intel, much like
> that of NetApp and others, is, "Open Source? Well, maybe, err,umm.. "... It's
> just not that important to them (as a company, they think). That said- if you
> can get access to said documentation (which I understand comes in a certain
> notebook that indicates releasing outside of Intel is a firing offense)- more
> power to you!
>
> -matt
The way I've gotten so-called proprietary information in the past is
to let the world know that "boneserver.analogic.com" 204.178.40.210 is
an open ftp site in which I don't even log what's uploaded and downloaded.
I check it once or twice a week to see if somebody has sent me anything
of interest. Sometimes, persons unknown to me, have deposited information
that I need.
Now I seem to need some programming information on the Intel e-1000.
I'll keep you informed if anything turns up.
Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.1 on an i686 machine (799.53 BogoMips).
"Memory is like gasoline. You use it up when you are running. Of
course you get it all back when you reboot..."; Actual explanation
obtained from the Micro$oft help desk.
>>>>> "Ofer" == Ofer Fryman <[email protected]> writes:
Ofer> I need a giga fiber PMC cards for linux2.0.36-pre14, the only
Ofer> cards I know are either Intel based or level-one lxt-1001 card,
Ofer> the level-one lxt-1001 has very bad performance so I cannot use
Ofer> it.
I'd recommend you to upgrade to at least 2.2.x, the scalability of
2.0.x means there is really no good reason to spend time porting GigE
drivers to it.
Jes
I am upgrading to 2.2.x, but mean while I need e1000 driver to run on 2.0.x,
I'm sure that others might need it too.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jes Sorensen [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2001 7:07 PM
To: Ofer Fryman
Cc: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'
Subject: Re: Intel-e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14
>>>>> "Ofer" == Ofer Fryman <[email protected]> writes:
Ofer> I need a giga fiber PMC cards for linux2.0.36-pre14, the only
Ofer> cards I know are either Intel based or level-one lxt-1001 card,
Ofer> the level-one lxt-1001 has very bad performance so I cannot use
Ofer> it.
I'd recommend you to upgrade to at least 2.2.x, the scalability of
2.0.x means there is really no good reason to spend time porting GigE
drivers to it.
Jes
Some more info:
I compiled it with support for IANS and without, but I get the same outcome,
only setting E1000_IMS_RXSEQ will cause endless interrupts that cannot be
stopped not with int_disable and not with cli(), so I guess there must be a
bug somewhere, so I activated it on 2.2.x and surprisingly it works ok.
Another thing is that without E1000_IMS_RXSEQ, I can see that the interrupt
handler is being evoked, but the driver does not try to receive or send
although I try pinging in and out of my machine.
Ofer
I finally managed to get the interrupt handler running successfully. The
problem was, if you run the driver in debug mode, the interrupt handler goes
crazy, this also happened to me on 2.2.x.
Now the driver appears to be running successfully, but I still cannot pass
traffic through, any clue of where to start looking?.
On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Richard B. Johnson wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001, Friedrich Steven E CONT CNIN wrote:
>
> Okay. Thanks. I'm forwarding this info to the original persons
> who needed it.
>
> > Perusing the Intel developer site, I found Linux source for a "base
driver".
> >
> >
> > Here's a link:
> >
http://appsr.intel.com/scripts-df/filter_results.asp?strOSs=39&strTypes=PLU%
> > 2CDRV%2CUTL&ProductID=415&OSFullName=Linux*&submit=Go%21
> >
<http://appsr.intel.com/scripts-df/filter_results.asp?strOSs=39&strTypes=PLU
> > %2CDRV%2CUTL&ProductID=415&OSFullName=Linux*&submit=Go%21>
> >
> > I read a file called e1000.txt and it's attached. They seem to be
giving
> > away the source for Advanced Networking Services too!!
> >
> > I prefer tech manuals too, and I can't seem to find one on their site.
But
> > the Linux community's constant refrain is "use the source, Luke". 8o)
>Thanks for the links. The source cannot tell you what chip errata you may
>stumble on. Oh well. Better than nothing indeed.
Finally e1000 works on linux2.0.x kernel. If only I had the specs a couple
of days ago...
I meant that if I had the specs I would have finished the driver sooner,
unfortunately I do not have them, but I am eager to get them in order to
improve performance on the card.
You are right there are no specs on Intel's web site, nor did anyone in
Intel answered any of my e-mails or returned any of my calls.
Ofer
-----Original Message-----
From: Matthew Jacob [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 7:22 PM
To: Ofer Fryman
Subject: RE: Intel-e1000 for Linux 2.0.36-pre14
I saw no 'specs' on the website.
On Mon, 5 Mar 2001, Ofer Fryman wrote:
> I meant that if I had the specs I would have finished the driver sooner,
> unfortunately I do not have them, but I am eager to get them in order to
> improve performance on the card.
>
> You are right there are no specs on Intel's web site, nor did anyone in
> Intel answered any of my e-mails or returned any of my calls.
Heh!
Well- at least you have it working! Good!