From: Russell King <rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk>
To: rafael2k <rafael@riseup.net>
Cc: dahinds@users.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: pcnet_cs problems in ARM handheld
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:57:45 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050411205745.B5070@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200504111622.54719.rafael@riseup.net>; from rafael@riseup.net on Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 04:22:52PM +0000
On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 04:22:52PM +0000, rafael2k wrote:
> Hi David and others kernel developers,
> Thanx for your pcnet_cs driver! I use it since old days :-P
>
> I bought a IC-CARD+ pcnet_cs compatible pcmcia nic, and i'm using it on a
> StrongARM HP Jornada 710. My kernel is a 2.4.18-rmk3-hh10 and my pcmcia-cs
> version is 3.1.33
>
> From dmesg I got this messages:
>
> --
> jornada720_pcmcia_configure_socket(): config socket 0 vcc 50 vpp 0
> jornada720_pcmcia_configure_socket(): config socket 0 vcc 50 vpp 0
> eth0: NE2000 Compatible: io 0xc2800300, irq 114, hw_addr 00:80:C8:88:00:56
> eth0: interrupt(s) dropped!
> NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
> eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x3, ISR=0x96, t=39.
> NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
> eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=55.
> NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
> eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=49.
> NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
> eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=88.
> eth0: interrupt(s) dropped!
> NETDEV WATCHDOG: eth0: transmit timed out
> eth0: Tx timed out, lost interrupt? TSR=0x3, ISR=0x3, t=77.
This looks like a case of the old 2.4 interrupt handling problems
which got resolved by rewriting the ARM interrupt handling
infrastructure during 2.5.
The problem occurs because of the need to handle edge-triggered
interrupts (as is the case with Intel CPUs) differently from
level-triggered interrupts, especially when the peripherals are
designed to be used with level-triggered inputs.
In effect, you can end up with the situation where the device has
its interrupt asserted, but because the CPU doesn't see a change
of state, it "forgets" about the interrupt input.
I'm not aware of a solution for this problem with 2.4 kernels.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-04-11 19:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-04-11 16:22 pcnet_cs problems in ARM handheld rafael2k
2005-04-11 19:57 ` Russell King [this message]
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=20050411205745.B5070@flint.arm.linux.org.uk \
--to=rmk+lkml@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=dahinds@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@riseup.net \
/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