netdev - RE: [PATCH] Increase virtual FIFOs in ucc

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

Message-Id: <1197392146.6790.26.camel@gentoo-jocke.transmode.se>
Date:	Tue, 11 Dec 2007 17:55:46 +0100
From:	Joakim Tjernlund <joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se>
To:	Li Yang <LeoLi@...escale.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Increase virtual FIFOs in ucc_geth.


On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 19:51 +0800, Li Yang wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:joakim.tjernlund@...nsmode.se] 
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:58 PM
> > To: Li Yang
> > Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] Increase virtual FIFOs in ucc_geth.
> > 
> > 
> > On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 11:11 +0100, Joakim Tjernlund wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2007-12-11 at 17:49 +0800, Li Yang wrote:
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Joakim Tjernlund [mailto:Joakim.Tjernlund@...nsmode.se] 
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 2:46 AM
> > > > > To: Li Yang-r58472 <LeoLi@...escale.com> Netdev
> > > > > Cc: Joakim Tjernlund
> > > > > Subject: [PATCH] Increase virtual FIFOs in ucc_geth.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Increase UCC_GETH_URFS_INIT to 1152 and
> > > > > UCC_GETH_UTFS_INIT to 896 to avoid HW Overrun/Underrun.
> > > > 
> > > > Please be noted that these values are only used for 
> > 10/100Mbps speed.
> > > > Did you get Overrun in 10/100M mode?
> > > 
> > > I get both TX Underrun and RX overrun in 100Mbps, FD, just
> > > by running a tftp transfer. It feels like the URFET and/or URSFET
> > > isn't working. Why I don't know. CPU is MPC832x
> > > 
> > >   Jocke
> > 
> > I am a bit confused how the RBMR and TBMR is supposed to work. In
> > ucc_get there is:
> >  out_be32(&ugeth->p_tx_glbl_pram->tstate, ((u32) 
> > function_code) << 24);
> >  ugeth->p_rx_glbl_pram->rstate = function_code;
> > First, should not the rx part look the same as tx?
> 
> To be consist with the chip RM, type for tstate is u32 and type for
> rstate is u8.  Personally I don't think that it will be different to
> access tstate as u8, but it will be more readable to be the same as
> manual.  Well, rstate probably should be changed to use IO accessor too.
> 
> > Does programing rstate/tstate replace RBMR and TBMR?
> 
> RBMR and TBMR?  These are for other protocols.
> 
> - Leo

BTW a ping -f -s 90  -l 10 lock the board, can't do
anything useful. NAPI problem?

    Jocke
--
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