On Fri, Aug 17, 2001 at 12:53:14AM +0100, Richard Mortimer wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for the delayed response hope that it is still of some use. > > Ben Collins writes: > > On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 05:50:53PM +0100, Richard Mortimer wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > David S. Miller writes: > > > > > > > > Richard Mortimer writes: > > > > > static int csr0 = 0x00800000 | 0x9000 > > > > > > > > Can you try values 0x00e00000 or just plain 0x0? > > > > > > > > These are the values the dmfe.c driver uses. > > > > > > Well the Tx timeouts seem to have stopped happening without me doing > > > anything! I did try a number of different values - as follows > > > > Well, I've gotten serial console to an X1 to test out a new set of > > debian tftp install images (thanks to Adam McKenna). Boots fine, and > > the ethernet devices come up, however I'm having no luck getting things > > working. > > > > Can you point me to the tftp install images (are they somewhere to > download) I will try them on my setup and see what happens.
http://auric.debian.org/~bcollins/disks-sparc/current/sun4u/tftpboot.img > > Basically pings work, but the tx is recorded as a carrier error. If I > > telnet to a known closed port, I get a connection refused, but if I > > telnet to a known open port, the connection hangs and I get this to > > kernel log: > > > > UDP: bad checksum. From 217.145.64.251:137 to 64.21.79.60:137 ulen 58 > > UDP: bad checksum. From 217.145.64.251:137 to 64.21.79.60:137 ulen 58 > > UDP: bad checksum. From 217.145.64.251:137 to 64.21.79.60:137 ulen 58 > > UDP: bad checksum. From 159.158.53.9:53 to 64.21.79.60:53 ulen 51 > > UDP: bad checksum. From 159.158.53.9:53 to 64.21.79.60:53 ulen 51 > > UDP: bad checksum. From 159.158.53.9:53 to 64.21.79.60:53 ulen 51 > > > > Are you seeing this on the X1 or on your other machines? I'm guessing > that is was the X1 but I just want to check. On the X1. > Hmmm you say that you were using telnet but the bad checksums are from > UDP with services dns (53) and netbios-ns (137). Yeah, I suspect that is from getaddrinfo() call. The netbios is impossible, since I have nothing that should be using that. Perhaps something else on the lan. > > Note, 64.21.79.60 is the local interface, and the connection I tried was > > to 64.21.79.61:80, which is also the nameserver. Sorry I can't get > > tcpdumps, since these are base disks, and I've no way to remotely get > > anything else on there right now. > > > > A few things to try. How about sending larger ping packets > > ping -s 1000 > > or something similar. Will do. > Was this on 100 base-T or 10 base-T connections? Full or half > duplex. I have only got a 10 base-T connection at the moment maybe > that has something to do with it. Did check. I'm check that later aswell. > > Any ideas, or other tests? Note, I did check to be sure that the test to > > clear the MRM was getting done. Cards are detected as so: > > > > eth0: Davicom DM9102/DM9102A rev 49 at 0x1fe02010100, EEPROM not present, > 00:4C:69:6E:75:79, IRQ 6867584. > > eth1: Davicom DM9102/DM9102A rev 49 at 0x1fe02010000, EEPROM not present, > 00:4C:69:6E:75:7A, IRQ 6866880. > > (the prom reports 0:3:ba:4:d6:84, weird) > > > > I'm using eth1, since that is what the person has connected. > > > > One thing to note. It seems that eth0 is what Solaris calls dmfe1 and > that eth1 is dmfe0 I guess that this doesn't make a difference. I use > eth1 too! Same for this case :) -- .----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=-----. / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
