From owner-freebsd-current Fri Sep 20 8:41: 9 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9F7B37B404 for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:41:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail15.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.215]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56A0D43E6E for ; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 08:41:01 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 26815 invoked from network); 20 Sep 2002 15:41:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender ) by mail15.speakeasy.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with DES-CBC3-SHA encrypted SMTP for ; 20 Sep 2002 15:41:02 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.5/8.12.5) with ESMTP id g8KFexBv069576; Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:40:59 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.2 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200209201520.g8KFKD332411@dungeon.home> Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 11:41:00 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Stephen McKay Subject: Re: dc(4) patch Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 20-Sep-2002 Stephen McKay wrote: > On Friday, 20th September 2002, John Baldwin wrote: > >>On 20-Sep-2002 Stephen McKay wrote: >>> Sadly this change is insufficient to satisfy all cards. >> >>Well. I think we can keep the check for TX going idle and just not do >>the check for RX going idle. The original code basically did this until >>you submitted a patch to wpaul@ that fixed a logic bug (used || above >>instead of &&) that effectively didn't do the RX idle check. > > Not quite. Davicom cards (and your card) fail to idle the receiver. > PNIC cards fail to idle the transmitter. So it makes just as much > sense as any other idea to check those bits only on cards that document > that you have to check those bits. My documentation only covers Intel. :-) Hmm, what if we went back then to waiting until at least one of either TX or RX went idle? Did only waiting for one actually break any 21143 cards? -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message