[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2008 19:18:31 +1000
From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>
To: Segher Boessenkool <segher@...nel.crashing.org>
Cc: mcarlson@...adcom.com, linuxppc-dev list <linuxppc-dev@...abs.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, Nathan Lynch <ntl@...ox.com>,
Michael Chan <mchan@...adcom.com>
Subject: Re: Strange tg3 regression with UMP fw. link reporting
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:58 +0200, Segher Boessenkool wrote:
> > I don't know yet for sure what happens, but a quick look at the commit
> > seems to show that the driver synchronously spin-waits for up to 2.5ms
>
> That's what the comment says, but the code says 2.5 _seconds_:
>
> + /* Wait for up to 2.5 milliseconds */
> + for (i = 0; i < 250000; i++) {
> + if (!(tr32(GRC_RX_CPU_EVENT) & GRC_RX_CPU_DRIVER_EVENT))
> + break;
> + udelay(10);
> + }
>
> (not that milliseconds wouldn't be bad already...)
Right, indeed. I think we have a good candidate for the problem :-) I'll
verify that on monday. Now, that leads to two questions:
- What such a synchronous and potentially horribly slow code is
going in a locked section or a timer interrupts ? Ie, the link
watch should probably move to a workqueue if that is to remain,
or the code turned into a state machine that periodically check for
events, or whatever is more sane than the above.
- The code should at least display some error and do something sane in
case of timeout such as disabling the new UMP feature instead of
repeatedly looping ...
- If this is indeed our problem (timing out in the code above), why is
our firmware not emitting the requested event -> maybe the PowerStations
need a tg3 firmware update.
Matt, what's your take on this ?
Cheers,
Ben.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists