Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 13 May 2002 10:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Matthew Dillon <dillon@apollo.backplane.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:  <200205131758.g4DHwJFj068941@apollo.backplane.com>
References:  <20020513115600.A50967@mufuf.trident-uk.co.uk> <3CDFF60C.48A2EA65@mindspring.com> <20020513102526.H72322@nexus.root.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

:>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.
:
:-DG
:
:David Greenman-Lawrence

    100% confirmation here.  When Bill Paul was tracking down these issues
    on my 2550's they were all operating normally, without any vlan tagging.

    The broadcom chips are horrendously buggy.  The phase of the moon is as
    likely to cause a problem as anything else.  The on-chip checksum code 
    is especially bad.  It's a classic example of rushing a chip into
    production and praying that the hardware is flexible enough that
    problems can be fixed in software by the driver.

						-Matt



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?200205131758.g4DHwJFj068941>