Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 05:27:40 +0930 (CST) From: Richard Sharpe <rsharpe@ns.aus.com> To: David Greenman-Lawrence <dg@root.com> Cc: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <jamie@tridentmicrosystems.co.uk>, <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Broadcom BCM5701 Chipset problems Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0205140526160.2758-100000@ns.aus.com> In-Reply-To: <20020513114124.J72322@nexus.root.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 13 May 2002, David Greenman-Lawrence wrote: > >David Greenman-Lawrence wrote: > >> >If you aren't using VLAN tagging, you shouldn't care. > >> > >> No, that is absolutely not correct. The checksum problems happend in many > >> situations, depending on the chipset and other factors. The problem that > >> resulted in the commit to disable the receive hardware checksum was caused > >> by small packets with certain byte patterns, NOT VLAN ENCAPSULATION. > > > >Are you sure you are talking about the Tigon III, and not the Tigon II? > > Yes, of course. I'm talking specifically about the Broadcom BCM570x. My > particular experiance was with the Syskonnect 9D21 and 9D41 boards which > both use the Altima chip. I have seen checksum problems with the 5700 ... Can you tell me which steppings of the 5701 you are seeing the problems with? Is it with 1500-byte frames, jumbo frames, or both? Regards ----- Richard Sharpe, rsharpe@ns.aus.com, rsharpe@samba.org, sharpe@ethereal.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.LNX.4.33.0205140526160.2758-100000>