From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [patch] NET: remove support for Davicom 9102 from the Tulip driver Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 18:06:17 -0400 Message-ID: <47F6A659.7000100@garzik.org> References: <47F69FBE.3020308@garzik.org> <20080404.150249.132264075.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mroos@linux.ee, cebbert@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, grundler@parisc-linux.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:51446 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752239AbYDDWGW (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Apr 2008 18:06:22 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20080404.150249.132264075.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: David Miller wrote: > From: Jeff Garzik > Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 17:38:06 -0400 > >> Meelis Roos wrote: >>> CE> We have two reports that agree the tulip driver doesn't work for >>> CE> the Davicom 9102 (PCI id 1282:9102). The dmfe driver does work >>> CE> and also claims the same PCI ID. >>> >>> NAK, dmfe does not work on some Sparc64 machines but tulip does. >>> >>> I happent to have a Sun Fire V100 with 2 Davicom NICs (1282:9102 (rev >>> 31)). >>> tulip driver works for them, dmfe doesn't. Tried with 2.6.25-rc7, first >>> it >>> gets MAC addresses all zeroed and second, it only results in Tx >>> timeouts. >> At the very least, it sounds like some SROM parsing problems on dmfe's >> part -- assuming a standard SROM when sparc64 provides a more >> complicated one. > > With the onboard Sparc64 davicoms, the SROM is essentially empty. In this case, should dmfe be retrieving the MAC address via addr = of_get_property(dp, "local-mac-address", &len); as tulip is doing? One thing that seems quite obvious is that dmfe is missing all the CONFIG_SPARC goodies that tulip has. Jeff