[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4C31B2E3BE2B481DB749C669DFE23645@realtek.com.tw>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2010 17:26:10 +0800
From: hayeswang <hayeswang@...ltek.com>
To: 'Francois Romieu' <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
'Timo Teräs' <timo.teras@....fi>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] r8169: fix random mdio_write failures
Our hardware engineer suggests that check the completed indication
per 100 micro seconds. And it needs 20 micro seconds delay after the
completed indication for the next command.
Best Regards,
Hayes
-----Original Message-----
From: Francois Romieu [mailto:romieu@...zoreil.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2010 8:41 PM
To: Timo Teräs
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org; Edward Hsu; Hayeswang; davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] r8169: fix random mdio_write failures
Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi> :
[...]
> diff --git a/drivers/net/r8169.c b/drivers/net/r8169.c index
> 217e709..03a8318 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/r8169.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/r8169.c
> @@ -559,6 +559,11 @@ static void mdio_write(void __iomem *ioaddr, int
reg_addr, int value)
> break;
> udelay(25);
> }
> + /*
> + * Some configurations require a small delay even after the write
> + * completed indication or the next write might fail.
> + */
> + udelay(25);
Acked-off-by: Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
Good work.
I wonder if increasing the in-loop delay as well would help the write
succeed faster (or slower ?).
--
Ueimor
------Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
--
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