On 20-Sep-2002 Stephen McKay wrote:
> On Friday, 20th September 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
>>On 20-Sep-2002 Stephen McKay wrote:
>>> Sadly this change is insufficient to satisfy all cards.
>>Well.  I think we can keep the check for TX going idle and just not do
>>the check for RX going idle.  The original code basically did this until
>>you submitted a patch to wpaul@ that fixed a logic bug (used || above
>>instead of &&) that effectively didn't do the RX idle check.
> Not quite.  Davicom cards (and your card) fail to idle the receiver.
> PNIC cards fail to idle the transmitter.  So it makes just as much
> sense as any other idea to check those bits only on cards that document
> that you have to check those bits.  My documentation only covers Intel. :-)

Hmm, what if we went back then to waiting until at least one of either
TX or RX went idle?  Did only waiting for one actually break any 21143


John Baldwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  <><  http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/
"Power Users Use the Power to Serve!"  -  http://www.FreeBSD.org/

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to