From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tom Rini Subject: Problem with 3c59x, WOL and Intel 440LX/EX or 430TX Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:07:27 -0700 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040211170727.GC18571@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Chris Mason Return-path: To: Kernel Mailing List , netdev@oss.sgi.com Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hello. I believe I have tracked down a problem with the WOL support in the 3c59x driver (2.6 varriant only right now). The problem has been seen I belive by a few people: (my own reports) http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=106297008218993&w=2 http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/9/2/167 I believe that the problem here is not with the driver per-se but with the BIOS: http://www.asus.com.tw/download/mbdriver/slot1-440lx.htm The short description of the problem is that when the WOL code in the driver is enabled, on some presumably buggy BIOSes the card ends up getting put into the sleep state, or something as something like the following gets reported as the driver inits: 3c59x: Donald Becker and others. www.scyld.com/network/vortex.html See Documentation/networking/vortex.txt 0000:00:0e.0: 3Com PCI 3c905B Cyclone 100baseTx at 0xe480. Vers LK1.1.19 PCI: Setting latency timer of device 0000:00:0e.0 to 64 ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff, IRQ 9 product code ffff rev ffff.15 date 15-31-127 Full duplex capable Internal config register is ffffffff, transceivers 0xffff. 1024K word-wide RAM 3:5 Rx:Tx split, autoselect/ interface. ***WARNING*** No MII transceivers found! Enabling bus-master transmits and early receives. 0000:00:0e.0: scatter/gather enabled. h/w checksums enabled If the patch in 1.1046.589.6 (key: akpm@osdl.org|ChangeSet|20030801165536|51693) is reversed, the problem goes away. But since that would be a drastic step for some buggy BIOSes, would a patch to add in a disable_wol (and maybe a prink about it, if no MII transceivers are found?) be an OK fix for this? OTOH, this looks like bugme # 1394, and if so, it looks like there's a number of buggy BIOS out there, so maybe it's not so drastic. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/