On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:54:54 +0200 Felix Deichmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> 2015-08-18 20:30 GMT+02:00 Frank Wille <[email protected]>: > > What's wrong with stge(4)? > > Compare our driver to the FreeBSD one, derived from us. It seems > FreeBSD's heavily improved in the meantime, but the changes were never > re-imported. Ok. > I try to summarise: We have no HW VLAN tagging, no jumbo frames (?), > the discussed PHY/link issues, ST-1023 (and compatible IP1000A, as can > be also seen even in your ifconfig output) is in promiscuous mode all > the time as work-around, I remember a bug/panics related to > stge_intr() reported on port-sandpoint (fixed?), possibly sub-optimal > performance, and an indicative amount of "XXX" in the driver... I don't know about other architectures, but I didn't really care about jumbo frames or sub-optimal performance, because the 200MHz 8241 is so weak that it couldn't even bring a 100MBit NIC to its limits. :) I don't remember any bugs or panics (although that doesn't mean much). In my tests the stge(4) driver seemed stable. > As said, I will receive a DSM-G600 (IP1000A), too, and a D-Link > DGE-550T (DL-2000) as different stge(4) representatives and would be > willing to help or work on improving the situation. Any help is welcome, of course. I can test and commit your modifications, when you make any progress. > If a more recent phy driver doesn't fix it, I also found special > handling for IP1000 in FreeBSD's stge_miibus_readreg(): > > if (reg == STGE_PhyCtrl) { > /* XXX allow ip1000phy read STGE_PhyCtrl register. */ > STGE_MII_LOCK(sc); > error = CSR_READ_1(sc, STGE_PhyCtrl); > STGE_MII_UNLOCK(sc); > return (error); > } The LOCK/UNLOCK just establishes a mutex. I doubt it will change much. -- Frank Wille
