[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <45535F66.8010803@intel.com>
Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 09:03:34 -0800
From: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To: John <me@...vacy.net>
CC: Auke Kok <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, hpa@...or.com, saw@....sw.com.sg
Subject: Re: Intel 82559 NIC corrupted EEPROM
John wrote:
> Auke Kok wrote:
>
>> This is what I was afraid of: even though the code allows you to
>> bypass the EEPROM checksum, the probe fails on a further check to see
>> if the MAC address is valid.
>>
>> Since something with this NIC specifically made the EEPROM return all
>> 0xff's, the MAC address is automatically invalid, and thus probe fails.
>
> I don't understand why you think there is something wrong with a
> specific NIC?
that was completely not my point - I was merely trying to point out that the original
problem causes a cascade of error events later on, and bypassing the eeprom check in
this case didn't help you at all. Something is wrong in the driver, but I don't
understand yet why it only affects one of the 3 nics in your system.
> In 2.6.14.7, e100.ko fails to read the EEPROM on 0000:00:08.0 (eth0)
> In 2.6.18.1, e100.ko fails to read the EEPROM on 0000:00:09.0 (eth1)
almost sounds like a bug got fixed and it introduced a regression. this wouldn't be the
right time to pull out git-bisect would it? even loading 2.6.15, 2.6.16, 2.6.17 on it
would give us some good information.
Cheers,
Auke
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists