On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 08:24:40AM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 05:33:29PM -0700, Pyun YongHyeon wrote: > > > > Thanks for the info. I still suspect r213495 might break BCM5704. > > Due to lack of BCM5704 I still couldn't test it except guessing. > > How about attached one? > > > Index: sys/dev/bge/if_bge.c > > =================================================================== > > --- sys/dev/bge/if_bge.c (revision 213711) > > +++ sys/dev/bge/if_bge.c (working copy) > > _at__at_ -1736,7 +1736,8 _at__at_ > > RCB_WRITE_4(sc, vrcb, bge_hostaddr.bge_addr_hi, 0); > > RCB_WRITE_4(sc, vrcb, bge_hostaddr.bge_addr_lo, 0); > > RCB_WRITE_4(sc, vrcb, bge_maxlen_flags, > > - BGE_RCB_FLAG_RING_DISABLED); > > + BGE_RCB_MAXLEN_FLAGS(sc->bge_return_ring_cnt, > > + BGE_RCB_FLAG_RING_DISABLED)); > > RCB_WRITE_4(sc, vrcb, bge_nicaddr, 0); > > bge_writembx(sc, BGE_MBX_RX_CONS0_LO + > > (i * (sizeof(uint64_t))), 0); > > Unfortunately, this patch does not fix the issue. > > If I revert r213495 via 'svn merge -r213495:213494 .' > in the sys/dev/bge directory, I can build a working > kernel. So, I can confirm that r213495 is the source > of the problem with a BCM5704 based NIC. > Fix committed to HEAD(r213742).Received on Tue Oct 12 2010 - 17:25:27 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:08 UTC