linux-kernel - [RFT] e100 driver on ARM

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <44FC0261.6010807@garzik.org>
Date:	Mon, 04 Sep 2006 06:39:29 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
	Russell King <rmk+lkml@....linux.org.uk>,
	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Subject: [RFT] e100 driver on ARM

One of the last steps necessary to deprecate the eepro100 driver is to 
ensure that e100 works everywhere that eepro100 does.

The eepro100 removal has been blocked for almost a year by a vague 
suggestion from Russell that e100 doesn't work on ARM.  But he doesn't 
have that machine anymore.  So, we're stuck in limbo.

This is a call to anyone who can test an Intel 10/100 chip on the ARM 
platform, in an effort to see where we are.  I'm looking for answers to 
the following two questions:

1) Does e100 driver work on ARM?

2) If not, does the "e100-sbit" branch of 
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git 
work on ARM?

FWIW, the e100-sbit branch has been in Andrew Morton's -mm tree since 
Nov 2005.

Below is the commit message for the e100-sbit change, in case anyone is 
interested.  I'm also hoping that Intel will help solve this problem, 
but poking Intel hasn't produced very much :(

	Jeff

> commit 32c1459bb3814274b3c5e0c5ed4efc6c0aa89eb4
> Author: Scott Feldman <sfeldma@...ox.com>
> Date:   Wed Nov 9 02:18:52 2005 -0500
> 
>     [netdrvr e100] experiment with doing RX in a similar manner to eepro100
> 
>     I was going to say that eepro100's speedo_rx_link() does the same DMA
>     abuse as e100, but then I noticed one little detail: eepro100 sets  both
>     EL (end of list) and S (suspend) bits in the RFD as it chains it  to the
>     RFD list.  e100 was only setting the EL bit.  Hmmm, that's  interesting.
>     That means that if HW reads a RFD with the S-bit set,  it'll process
>     that RFD and then suspend the receive unit.  The  receive unit will
>     resume when SW clears the S-bit.  There is no need  for SW to restart
>     the receive unit.  Which means a lot of the receive  unit state tracking
>     code in the driver goes away.
> 
>     So here's a patch against 2.6.14.  (Sorry for inlining it; the mailer
>     I'm using now will mess with the word wrap).  I can't test this on
>     XScale (unless someone has an e100 module for Gumstix :) .  It should
>     be doing exactly what eepro100 does with RFDs.  I don't believe this
>     change will introduce a performance hit because the S-bit and EL-bit  go
>     hand-in-hand meaning if we're going to suspend because of the S- bit,
>     we're on the last resource anyway, so we'll have to wait for SW  to
>     replenish.

-- 
VGER BF report: U 0.499999
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/