Thread: [Etherboot-developers] Etherboot has eepro100.c for 82559....?
Brought to you by:
marty_connor,
stefanhajnoczi
Menu
▾
▴
etherboot-developers
|
From: atul s. <atu...@re...> - 2002-08-28 05:49:19
|
Yah .. i found a missing call to virt_to_bus for passing the address of txfd ..but even after adding that my status is same. just few momemts back i noticed i am using a 82559 card while etherboot eepro100 drives only 82557 card. i know about few change in char config_cmd [22] and in TxFD and RxFD structure has taken plave between 82557 and 82559 cards. anywy does any body know it any vrsion of etherboot has the scaled down version of Donald Becker's 82559 driver. if yes pls. let me know.. Best Regards, On Wed, 28 Aug 2002 Eric W Biederman wrote : >"atul srivastava" <atu...@re...> writes: > > > since i amn't subscribed to list pls. cc any reply to me. > >Once. Are you running this on an embedded mips platform? >Normally traffic is kept on the list. > > > I am trying to use etherboot for net booting using > > 82557 network card. > > > > my driver is eepro100.c by R.E.wolff that is a scaled down >version of donald > > becker one. > > this driver doesn't uses any interrupt and packet reception is >polling driven. > > > > resource assignment for pci base addreses are: > > > > BAR0 - 0x60000000 > > BAR1 - 0x18800001 > > BAR2 - 0x62000000 > > > > these addresses are as per the mips idt manual. > > also virt_to_bus are confirmed to be o.k > >Does your driver match the newest version in the development tree >5.1.2rc3? >Otherwise there is a missing virt_to_bus call. > > > i am able to correctly read MAC address for card. > > > > also packet reception is o.k , so the pci bus to memory >trasaction is taking > > place. > > > > my problem is in packet trasmission i should get txfd.status >to become nonzero > > for indicating packet trasfer has happened but it never >happens and my driver > > hangs there for ever. > > > > when debugged i saw from very begining status as 0090 > > . > > > > as per eepro manual status 0090 indicates "NO RESOURCE" > > > > but i am unable to conclude what it means.. > > > > can any body help..? > >Of the top of my head I would say it is the missing virt_to_bus >call >in the stable version of the tree. > >Eric __________________________________________________________ Give your Company an email address like ravi @ ravi-exports.com. Sign up for Rediffmail Pro today! Know more. http://www.rediffmailpro.com/signup/ |
|
From: <ebi...@ln...> - 2002-08-28 06:27:26
|
"atul srivastava" <atu...@re...> writes: > Yah .. i found a missing call to virt_to_bus for passing the address > of txfd ..but even after adding that my status is same. > > just few momemts back i noticed i am using a 82559 card > while etherboot eepro100 drives only 82557 card. That shouldn't be a problem in and of itself, especially as they hide out under the same pci id. > i know about few change in char config_cmd [22] and in TxFD and RxFD > structure has taken plave between 82557 and 82559 cards. Hmm. Do you have an 82559 or an 825559ER? > anywy does any body know it any vrsion of etherboot has the scaled > down version of Donald Becker's 82559 driver. > > if yes pls. let me know.. Anyway the driver has worked well for me on the 82559. Eric |
|
From: Ronald G M. <rmi...@la...> - 2002-08-28 14:19:32
|
On 28 Aug 2002, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Hmm. Do you have an 82559 or an 825559ER? I have 82559er and in 5.0.6 the eepro100 worked fine. ron |
|
From: Ronald G M. <rmi...@la...> - 2002-08-28 14:18:47
|
On 28 Aug 2002, atul srivastava wrote: > just few momemts back i noticed i am using a 82559 card > while etherboot eepro100 drives only 82557 card. that difference has not been a problem for me (yet). For version 5.0.6 we just added the devid for the 82559 to the eepro100.c and it all worked fine. I have never had 5.0.7 work on any system I have, however. And, interestingly, the symptoms are the same for both cards I have tried 5.0.7 on: packets get sent OK, but etherboot never knows it. ron |
|
From: Eric W B. <ebi...@ln...> - 2002-08-28 19:42:55
|
Ronald G Minnich <rmi...@la...> writes: > On 28 Aug 2002, atul srivastava wrote: > > > just few momemts back i noticed i am using a 82559 card > > while etherboot eepro100 drives only 82557 card. > > that difference has not been a problem for me (yet). > > For version 5.0.6 we just added the devid for the 82559 to the eepro100.c > and it all worked fine. I have never had 5.0.7 work on any system I have, > however. And, interestingly, the symptoms are the same for both cards I > have tried 5.0.7 on: packets get sent OK, but etherboot never knows it. Ron could you send a patch of your outstanding changes to etherboot please. Debugging isn't easy when you change the code and sit on it. Eric |
|
From: Ronald G M. <rmi...@la...> - 2002-08-28 19:45:30
|
On 28 Aug 2002, Eric W Biederman wrote: > Ron could you send a patch of your outstanding changes to etherboot please. oh boy. OK, I'll send it, but it's messy. We haven't made an effort to clean it up. The thing that's odd here is that I think my eepro100.c won't differ much if at all from yours. But I'll check. ron |
|
From: Eric W B. <ebi...@ln...> - 2002-08-28 20:04:45
|
"atul srivastava" <atu...@re...> writes: > Yah .. i found a missing call to virt_to_bus for passing the address of txfd > ..but even after adding that my status is same. > > just few momemts back i noticed i am using a 82559 card > while etherboot eepro100 drives only 82557 card. > > i know about few change in char config_cmd [22] and in TxFD and RxFD structure > has taken plave between 82557 and 82559 cards. > > anywy does any body know it any vrsion of etherboot has the scaled down version > of Donald Becker's 82559 driver. > > if yes pls. let me know.. On a slighty seperate subject would you be interested in working on a full port to MIPS? Hmm. Are you running little endian MIPS? It just occured to me that if you are big endian there might be some endian problems in the driver. I have been working the codebase in the general direction of portability with 5.1.2rc3. The driver API is portable, and non-portable drivers should show up on x86 for the most part. The core codebase still needs porting. On my wishlist I have x86-64, Itanium, and Alpha, but I don't know if I will get to any of them. Eric |
