From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Sep 12 14:15:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4ED7216A4BF for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:15:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from blake.polstra.com (mail.polstra.com [206.213.73.132]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A79943FD7 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:15:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Received: from strings.polstra.com (strings.polstra.com [206.213.73.20]) by blake.polstra.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h8CLFdZj032025; Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:15:39 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jdp@polstra.com) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.22.0.20030912170617.0571b5b8@209.112.4.2> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:15:39 -0700 (PDT) From: John Polstra To: Mike Tancsa X-Bogosity: No, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.494395, version=0.14.5 cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: recent stability problems with fxp driver X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 21:15:41 -0000 On 12-Sep-2003 Mike Tancsa wrote: > At 05:01 PM 12/09/2003, John Polstra wrote: > >>When I first installed FreeBSD on this system, it disabled dynamic >>standby mode as you showed above. Maybe it shouldn't have ... :-) > > Is it possible Dell re-enables it somehow in the BIOS ? Perhaps your > version of the NIC needs it disabled a different way ? Could be ... I don't know. The driver checks whether dynamic standby mode is enabled in the EEPROM at attach time, and if it is enabled the driver emits that message and turns it off again. I only saw the message the first time I booted FreeBSD. So if the BIOS is overriding the setting, it's not doing so by scribbling in the EEPROM. > Also I found I needed to physically power off some of the machines > for the change to take effect and also the problem was MUCH more > acute at 10baseT than 100BaseTX. I think jlemon said it was in both > modes, but I only ever saw the problem at 10baseT and like you saw, > it didnt take much to force the issue. I've definitely got a 100 Mbps full-duplex link. I haven't tried it at 10 Mbps, and I wouldn't bother using them at that speed even if they worked perfectly. John