[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100329010346.GH30031@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:03:46 +0100
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Fran?ois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Cc: Ben Hutchings <ben@...adent.org.uk>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, timo.teras@....fi,
ivecera@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: fix broken register writes
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 11:19:24PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > > Thanks Fran?ois. Which hardware have you tested this on so far ?
> >
> > 10ec:8169 (rev 10) / RTL8169sb/8110sb / XID 10000000
> >
> > Timo's is a 10ec:8167 / RTL8169sc/8110sc / XID 18000000. He only tested
> > the MAC[04] part.
>
> FWIW, XID18000000 here (J7F4) loses MAC4 on shutdown; hadn't tested the patch
> yet. 2.6.26 (on that box) and 2.6.31 (on identical mb) work, 2.6.33 doesn't.
> I suspect that bisect would lead to commit cc098dc70 (i.e. the place where we
> started to set address on shutdown). One more data point: ifconfig hw ether
> done under 2.6.26 did restore the address. And that's the same function,
> isn't it?
As the matter of fact, ifconfig eth0 hw ether .... ends up zeroing upper
32 bits on old kernels once in a while.
What orders accesses as seen by PCI bus in
RTL_W8(Cfg9346, Cfg9346_Unlock);
RTL_W32(MAC0, low);
RTL_W32(MAC4, high);
RTL_W8(Cfg9346, Cfg9346_Lock);
anyway, and don't we need mmiowb() or two in there?
--
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