From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <004401c3c9c5$e9a327b0$5100a8c0@davey> From: "Davey" To: "Matt Porter" , "Mark Powell" Cc: References: <29449.216.110.51.8.1071877375.squirrel@www.orkun.us> <1072105831.4163.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> <001d01c3c923$db2ca3c0$5100a8c0@davey> <3FE814FF.7020503@primagraphics.co.uk> <20031223101022.A23655@home.com> Subject: Re: patch for ibm 405ep emac driver in linux-2.4.22 and 2.4.23 Date: Wed, 24 Dec 2003 10:30:35 +0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: I have test the way that Mark Powell provide and it doesn't work well. When I run "ifconfig eth1 up" I get output "SIOCSIFFLAGS: Device or resource busy". I think we should fix more code as follow: file: driver/net/ibm_emac/ibm_ocp_enet.c ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ --line 1150 /* Request our interrupt lines */ rc = request_irq(dev->irq, emac_mac_irq, 0, "OCP EMAC MAC", dev); if (rc != 0) goto bail; --- rc = request_irq(fep->wol_irq, emac_wakeup_irq, 0, "OCP EMAC Wakeup", dev); +++ rc = request_irq(fep->wol_irq, emac_wakeup_irq, SHIRQ, "OCP EMAC Wakeup", dev); if (rc != 0) { free_irq(dev->irq, dev); goto bail; } ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Davey Wu ----- Original Message ----- From: "Matt Porter" To: "Mark Powell" Cc: ; "Davey" Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 1:10 AM Subject: Re: patch for ibm 405ep emac driver in linux-2.4.22 and 2.4.23 > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2003 at 10:12:15AM +0000, Mark Powell wrote: > > > > Davey wrote: > > > > >Some time ago Stefan and I had reported that both ethernet interfaces > > >cannot work well together. Sorry I have lost all old mails when I > > >reinstall my computer. We have find that this problem is caused by > > >that the base address of eht1 is wrong set. Follow by my patch for > > >linux-2.4.22 and linux-2.4.23. I have test the patch and it work well. > > > > shouldn't that just be: > > This is the right way to do it, we can't put that other hack in the > kernel. If somebody verifies this patch hen we can get it in. > > -Matt > > ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/