From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Kok, Auke" Subject: Re: [PATCH][E1000E] some cleanups Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:16:41 -0700 Message-ID: <46FFE809.8020504@intel.com> References: <1191174077.6165.11.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Kok, Auke" , netdev@vger.kernel.org To: hadi@cyberus.ca Return-path: Received: from vms042pub.verizon.net ([206.46.252.42]:65353 "EHLO vms042pub.verizon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751299AbXI3SRI (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:17:08 -0400 Received: from ahkok-mobl.jf.intel.com ([71.182.85.189]) by vms042.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-6.01 (built Apr 3 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0JP7006WO1FVCY89@vms042.mailsrvcs.net> for netdev@vger.kernel.org; Sun, 30 Sep 2007 13:16:44 -0500 (CDT) In-reply-to: <1191174077.6165.11.camel@localhost> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org jamal wrote: > Auke, > > heres part of something i promised. > I couldnt do any packet testing on because 82571EB is disabled in the > driver. I uncommented the code out in the table, but the best i could > get was the module loading, some probing and some sysfs renaming > failures (probably a debianism); the machine access is intermittent, so > thats as far as i could go. In any case, you probably have a good reason > for disabling that chip. So, heres the patch, the burden of testing now > falls on you ;-> no, all the hardware that is commented should work just fine. I tested this driver on 82571, 82573 and ich8/ich9 - extensively. the reason that we disable them is that we're going to migrate devices over in batches. At introduction we'll support ich9, afterwards we'll drop in the IDs of the other groups of silicon. > Once you have 82571EB on and kicking, my next steps are to kill LLTX > then add batching on top. > BTW, since this driver is just for PCIE, would you take a similar patch > for non-PCIE e1000? if it's a fix, yes. > comment: > There used to be an "mmiowb()" call right after the dma wake which is > gone now; is this unneeded with pcie? I have restored it, look for the > "XXX". thanks, I'll go and look at this in depth in the coming weeks. Auke