"H. Peter Anvin" wrote:
> Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By author:"Moore, Eric Dean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
> >
> > EBDA - Extended Bios Data Area
> >
> > Does Linux and various boot loaders(lilo/grub/etc)
> > having any restrictions on where and how big
H. Peter Anvin wrote:
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:Moore, Eric Dean [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
EBDA - Extended Bios Data Area
Does Linux and various boot loaders(lilo/grub/etc)
having any restrictions on where and how big
memory allocated in
Corey Minyard wrote:
> BTW, I'm also working with the person who had the trouble with the I2C
> non-blocking driver updates, but we haven't figured it out yet.
> Hopefully soon. (Though that has nothing to do with this patch.)
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Corey
>
>
Corey Minyard wrote:
BTW, I'm also working with the person who had the trouble with the I2C
non-blocking driver updates, but we haven't figured it out yet.
Hopefully soon. (Though that has nothing to do with this patch.)
Thanks,
-Corey
Bukie Mabayoje wrote:
> Can you do a simple test?
> Connect the two box to the same switch. ( No other box should be on the
> physical bus)
> 1. Send packets from BoxA ---> BoxB ( Record the stats)
>
> 2. Send packets from BoxB ---> BoxA(Record the st
Can you do a simple test?
Connect the two box to the same switch. ( No other box should be on the
physical bus)
1. Send packets from BoxA ---> BoxB ( Record the stats)
2. Send packets from BoxB ---> BoxA(Record the stats)
3. Send packets simultaneously from BoxB->BoxA and
Can you do a simple test?
Connect the two box to the same switch. ( No other box should be on the
physical bus)
1. Send packets from BoxA --- BoxB ( Record the stats)
2. Send packets from BoxB --- BoxA(Record the stats)
3. Send packets simultaneously from BoxB-BoxA and
Bukie Mabayoje wrote:
Can you do a simple test?
Connect the two box to the same switch. ( No other box should be on the
physical bus)
1. Send packets from BoxA --- BoxB ( Record the stats)
2. Send packets from BoxB --- BoxA(Record the stats)
3. Send packets
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Jaco Kroon wrote:
> > >>
> > >>ok, how would I try this? Where can I find an example to code it from?
> > >> Sorry, I should probably be grepping ...
> > > If the udelay() didn't work, then this one isn't worth worryign about
> > > either. Back to
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005, Jaco Kroon wrote:
ok, how would I try this? Where can I find an example to code it from?
Sorry, I should probably be grepping ...
If the udelay() didn't work, then this one isn't worth worryign about
either. Back to the drawing board.
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 08:23:47PM -0800, Bukie Mabayoje wrote:
> >
> > Scott Feldman wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 09:18, David Härdeman wrote:
> > > > I experience the same problems as reported by Michael Gernoth whe
The issue is not the PME interrupt, the issue is that the device is going into
a state that is not valid. A live system should never ASSERT PME# line. As long
as this functionality is enable on the chip the PME will be asserted.
To avoid this unwanted condition the driver should disable PME on
The issue is not the PME interrupt, the issue is that the device is going into
a state that is not valid. A live system should never ASSERT PME# line. As long
as this functionality is enable on the chip the PME will be asserted.
To avoid this unwanted condition the driver should disable PME on
Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 08:23:47PM -0800, Bukie Mabayoje wrote:
Scott Feldman wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 09:18, David Härdeman wrote:
I experience the same problems as reported by Michael Gernoth when
sending a WOL-packet to computer with a e100 NIC
Scott Feldman wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 09:18, David Härdeman wrote:
> > I experience the same problems as reported by Michael Gernoth when
> > sending a WOL-packet to computer with a e100 NIC which is already
> > powered on.
>
> I didn't look at the 2.4 case, but for 2.6, it seems e100 was
David Härdeman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> (third question to LKML today =)
>
> I've recently bought an Intel SE7210TP1-E mainboard (specs here:
> http://www.intel.com/design/servers/boards/SE7210TP1-E/index.htm) and I
> now have most things working.
>
> There are however, two questionmarks left.
>
> 1)
Scott Feldman wrote:
On Sun, 2005-01-30 at 09:18, David Härdeman wrote:
I experience the same problems as reported by Michael Gernoth when
sending a WOL-packet to computer with a e100 NIC which is already
powered on.
I didn't look at the 2.4 case, but for 2.6, it seems e100 was enabling
Michael Gernoth wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Bukie Mabayoje wrote:
> > Do you know the official NIC product name e.g Pro/100B. I need to identify
> > the LAN Controller. There are differences between 557 (not sure if 557 can
> > do WOL), 558 an
Michael Gernoth wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Bukie Mabayoje wrote:
Do you know the official NIC product name e.g Pro/100B. I need to identify
the LAN Controller. There are differences between 557 (not sure if 557 can
do WOL), 558 and 559 how they ASSERT the PME
Michael Gernoth wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Bukie Mabayoje wrote:
> > Do you know the official NIC product name e.g Pro/100B. I need to identify
> > the LAN Controller. There are differences between 557 (not sure if 557 can
> > do WOL), 558 an
Michael Gernoth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we have about 70 P4 uniprocessor machines (some with Hyperthreading
> capable CPUs) running linux 2.4.29, which are woken up on the weekdays
> by sending a WOL packet to them. The machines all have a E100 nic with
> WOL enabled in the bios. The E100 driver is
Michael Gernoth wrote:
Hi,
we have about 70 P4 uniprocessor machines (some with Hyperthreading
capable CPUs) running linux 2.4.29, which are woken up on the weekdays
by sending a WOL packet to them. The machines all have a E100 nic with
WOL enabled in the bios. The E100 driver is compiled
Michael Gernoth wrote:
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 10:53:51AM -0800, Bukie Mabayoje wrote:
Do you know the official NIC product name e.g Pro/100B. I need to identify
the LAN Controller. There are differences between 557 (not sure if 557 can
do WOL), 558 and 559 how they ASSERT the PME
> I will be glad to work with on this, I have some exposure to the BMC. See
> text below in blue.
>
> bukie
>
> Corey Minyard wrote:
>
>> Mark Studebaker wrote:
>>
>> > is there a way to do this solely in i2c-core without having to
>> > add support to all the drivers?
>>
>> Yes and no. In order
I will be glad to work with on this, I have some exposure to the BMC. See
text below in blue.
bukie
Corey Minyard wrote:
Mark Studebaker wrote:
is there a way to do this solely in i2c-core without having to
add support to all the drivers?
Yes and no. In order to support this
25 matches
Mail list logo
