Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:15:03 +0200 (CEST) From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de> To: Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com> Cc: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Subject: Re: realtime problem Message-ID: <20030410181322.W774@beagle.fokus.fraunhofer.de> In-Reply-To: <20030410114643.O472@odysseus.silby.com> References: <20030409114957.GN83126@cicely9.cicely.de> <20030410113602.K472@odysseus.silby.com> <20030410114643.O472@odysseus.silby.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Silbersack wrote: MS> MS>On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Mike Silbersack wrote: MS> MS>> MS>> On Thu, 10 Apr 2003, Harti Brandt wrote: MS>> MS>> > MS>Harti, you're more than welcome to investigate and see if those changes MS>> > MS>reduce delay for you. :) MS>> > MS>> > With this patch I get the following timing: MS>> MS>> The patch I posted was not all inclusive, and did not touch all of the mii MS>> code. You should doublecheck to see if the PHY type of your NIC was MS>> patched or not. MS>> MS>> Mike "Silby" Silbersack MS> MS>Hm, wait, the patch I sent should have affected exphy, which is why newer MS>3Coms use... MS> MS>What were your timing results before the change vs after? This is a 3com and has an exphy, which in turn uses ukphy_status. The timing is the same (960usec), because it never takes the first return. Should it? harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030410181322.W774>