From: Steve Simitzis <steve@saturn5.com>
To: "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@intel.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e1000 problems in 2.6.x
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 18:32:27 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040215023226.GE1040@saturn5.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <C6F5CF431189FA4CBAEC9E7DD5441E0102229F6F@orsmsx402.jf.intel.com>
i should have mentioned in my email that i tried every combination of
settings: auto-neg on the box and forced on the switch, both forced
(to the same settings, of course), forced on the box with auto-neg on
the switch, and auto-neg on both sides. in all cases, the result was
the same: RX packet errors and the same watchdog messages. what i thought
was particularly strange was that the switch refused to auto-negotiate
full duplex.
(someone on another list suggested to try booting with the noapic
option, which i tried for good measure, even though i don't see
how that could have helped. again, no improvement.)
i was initially tempted to assume they were hardware problems, until
i noticed that the problems only appeared when running a 2.6 kernel.
also, the machines are only a few months old, so i'm assuming that
all the hardware is modern enough to do the right thing.
if there's anything you'd recommend trying out, please let me know.
i considered trying to run the 2.4.22 driver in a 2.6 installation,
but i didn't know if any of the driver code depended on anything else
elsewhere in the kernel source.
On 02/14/04, "Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@intel.com> wrote:
> > another oddity is that even after forcing my interfaces to
> > 100 Mbps full duplex, my switch is reporting half duplex.
> > again, this only happens in 2.6.x. when running 2.4.22, full
> > duplex is properly negotiated between the e1000 and my switch.
>
> Are you forcing both the e1000 interfaces and the switch ports to the
> same forced settings? A duplex mismatch would cause problems, but I'm
> not sure why this is happening for 2.6 only. What happens if you don't
> force settings, and just rely on autoneg? (Again, on both ends of the
> wire).
>
> -scott
--
steve simitzis : /sim' - i - jees/
pala : saturn5 productions
www.steve.org : 415.282.9979
hath the daemon spawn no fire?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-15 2:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-15 0:26 e1000 problems in 2.6.x Feldman, Scott
2004-02-15 2:32 ` Steve Simitzis [this message]
2004-02-15 3:22 ` Bill Davidsen
2004-02-15 3:53 ` Steve Simitzis
2004-02-15 8:16 ` Re[2]: " Elikster
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-02-16 4:17 Paul Blazejowski
2004-02-17 18:26 ` Anton Blanchard
2004-02-15 15:20 Re[2]: " Klaus Dittrich
2004-02-16 1:14 ` Re[3]: " Elikster
2004-02-16 2:12 ` Steve Simitzis
2004-02-14 11:13 Steve Simitzis
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20040215023226.GE1040@saturn5.com \
--to=steve@saturn5.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=scott.feldman@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox