From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:43:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from deliver-1.mx.triera.net ([213.161.0.31]:59267 "HELO deliver-1.mx.triera.net") by ftp.linux-mips.org with SMTP id S3458461AbVKJRnF (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:43:05 +0000 Received: from localhost (in-1.mx.triera.net [213.161.0.25]) by deliver-1.mx.triera.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF5C3C06E; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:44:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp.triera.net (smtp.triera.net [213.161.0.30]) by in-1.mx.triera.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 6E3C91BC07F; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:44:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from orionlinux.starfleet.com (cmb58-52.dial-up.arnes.si [153.5.49.52]) by smtp.triera.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 816DB1A18BD; Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:44:30 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: smc91x support From: Matej Kupljen To: pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com Cc: Atsushi Nemoto , linux-mips@linux-mips.org In-Reply-To: <200511101737.09316.pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com> References: <1131634331.18165.30.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051111.001543.93019156.anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp> <200511101737.09316.pantelis.antoniou@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Ultra d.o.o. Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:44:30 +0100 Message-Id: <1131644670.1478.4.camel@orionlinux.starfleet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: Triera AV Service Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 9468 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: matej.kupljen@ultra.si Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Hi > > matej> Is there any solution to this? > > > > I have similar problem on my several custom boards with SMC91C111. I > > see so many RX overrun, but I can not see why it happens. Forcing to > > 10Mbps/HalfDuplex reduced the overrun count (and works better than > > 100Mbps), but it is not preferable, of course ... How did you achieve this? By software or by using 10 Mbps switch? > And yes performance is bad with this chip. Probably I'll try and switch it to 10 Mbps, because NFS is terrible because it gets a lot of timeouts because of dropped packets. > I'm not sure if DMA would > help much, since the overrun occurs because the chip does not have > enough internal buffers. I don't think that we can service the interrupts > fast enough to prevent the overruns... I found this mail from Nicolas on ARM mailing list: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2005-October/031736.html Maybe we could try DMA and see what happens. Any hints how to try this, because I haven't worked with DDMA before? BR, Matej