SEEPROM test patch

SEEPROM test patch

[Matt Carlson]

James, Robin.  I looked through the patches again and found that the
SEEPROM routines were not being adjusted correctly along with the flash
NVRAM access routines.  The patch below should shore up the difference.
The patch works on both BE and LE systems.

Can you apply the patch below and see if it fixes your problem?  (You
may have to back out David's changes for the mac addresses to be
restored, but 'eeprom -e' dumps should be fixed.)  If it does, I'll
post a replacement patch that documents why the code is doing what it's
doing.


diff --git a/drivers/net/tg3.c b/drivers/net/tg3.c
index 6a736dd..3ef43c2 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tg3.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tg3.c
@@ -2190,7 +2190,10 @@ static int tg3_nvram_read_using_eeprom(struct tg3 *tp,
 	if (!(tmp & EEPROM_ADDR_COMPLETE))
 		return -EBUSY;
 
-	*val = tr32(GRC_EEPROM_DATA);
+	tmp = tr32(GRC_EEPROM_DATA);
+
+	*val = swab32(tmp);
+
 	return 0;
 }
 
@@ -10657,13 +10660,13 @@ static int tg3_nvram_write_block_using_eeprom(struct tg3 *tp,
 
 	for (i = 0; i < len; i += 4) {
 		u32 addr;
-		__be32 data;
+		__le32 data;
 
 		addr = offset + i;
 
 		memcpy(&data, buf + i, 4);
 
-		tw32(GRC_EEPROM_DATA, be32_to_cpu(data));
+		tw32(GRC_EEPROM_DATA, le32_to_cpu(data));
 
 		val = tr32(GRC_EEPROM_ADDR);
 		tw32(GRC_EEPROM_ADDR, val | EEPROM_ADDR_COMPLETE);

Re: SEEPROM test patch

[James Bottomley]

On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 10:21 -0700, Matt Carlson wrote:
> James, Robin.  I looked through the patches again and found that the
> SEEPROM routines were not being adjusted correctly along with the flash
> NVRAM access routines.  The patch below should shore up the difference.
> The patch works on both BE and LE systems.
> 
> Can you apply the patch below and see if it fixes your problem?  (You
> may have to back out David's changes for the mac addresses to be
> restored, but 'eeprom -e' dumps should be fixed.)  If it does, I'll
> post a replacement patch that documents why the code is doing what it's
> doing.

Yes, that seems to work better:  both the mac address and ethtool -e
output are back to what 2.6.29 reports.

James

Re: SEEPROM test patch

[Robin Holt]

On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 05:44:17PM +0000, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-04-14 at 10:21 -0700, Matt Carlson wrote:
> > James, Robin.  I looked through the patches again and found that the
> > SEEPROM routines were not being adjusted correctly along with the flash
> > NVRAM access routines.  The patch below should shore up the difference.
> > The patch works on both BE and LE systems.
> > 
> > Can you apply the patch below and see if it fixes your problem?  (You
> > may have to back out David's changes for the mac addresses to be
> > restored, but 'eeprom -e' dumps should be fixed.)  If it does, I'll
> > post a replacement patch that documents why the code is doing what it's
> > doing.
> 
> Yes, that seems to work better:  both the mac address and ethtool -e
> output are back to what 2.6.29 reports.

Works for me as well.

Thanks,
Robin