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 cards? -- 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
