From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon May 13 11:48:46 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from ns.aus.com (adsl-64-175-246-218.dsl.sntc01.pacbell.net [64.175.246.218]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 87A1637B403 for ; Mon, 13 May 2002 11:48:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (rsharpe@localhost) by ns.aus.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4DJve903867; Tue, 14 May 2002 05:27:40 +0930 Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 05:27:40 +0930 (CST) From: Richard Sharpe To: David Greenman-Lawrence Cc: Terry Lambert , , Subject: Re: Broadcom BCM5701 Chipset problems In-Reply-To: <20020513114124.J72322@nexus.root.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG 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