Re: [RTnet-users] Fwd: Intel e100 Driver Ported to RTNET

2010-05-19 Thread Vladimir Cotfas
Jan, > I had it running only for a short while w/o the WDT and I did not see any > > lockup. I could do a longer test. > > That would make e100 _very_ interesting as a eepro100 replacement, at > least mid-term when we know that no eepro100 users suffer from potential > regressions with e100. > I

Re: [RTnet-users] Fwd: Intel e100 Driver Ported to RTNET

2010-05-19 Thread Jan Kiszka
Vladimir Cotfas wrote: > Jan, > >> I had it running only for a short while w/o the WDT and I did not see any >>> lockup. I could do a longer test. >> That would make e100 _very_ interesting as a eepro100 replacement, at >> least mid-term when we know that no eepro100 users suffer from potential >>

Re: [RTnet-users] Fwd: Intel e100 Driver Ported to RTNET

2010-05-19 Thread Vladimir Cotfas
Jan, Please understand that I will not merge any ha^w"extensions" on top of > an RT Linux variant, neither RTAI nor any other approach. The proper > abstractions are RTDM for RT, Linux for non-RT base services, and any > other services have to be provided by the RTnet core. If something is > missi

[RTnet-users] Fixed rtnetproxy

2010-05-19 Thread Vladimir Cotfas
Folks, This fix is on top of a git checkout from Jan 7, 2010. It fixes the outstanding issue where a RTNET TX busy condition is not signaled correctly to the Linux stack so some packets are dropped on the floor. Can be reproduced by FTP'in a 10M file *from* the RTNET box: ACK packets sent by Linu

Re: [RTnet-users] Fwd: Intel e100 Driver Ported to RTNET

2010-05-19 Thread Jan Kiszka
Vladimir Cotfas wrote: > Jan, > > Please understand that I will not merge any ha^w"extensions" on top of >> an RT Linux variant, neither RTAI nor any other approach. The proper >> abstractions are RTDM for RT, Linux for non-RT base services, and any >> other services have to be provided by the RTn

Re: [RTnet-users] Fixed rtnetproxy

2010-05-19 Thread Jan Kiszka
Vladimir Cotfas wrote: > Folks, > > This fix is on top of a git checkout from Jan 7, 2010. > > It fixes the outstanding issue where a RTNET TX busy condition is not > signaled correctly to the Linux stack so some packets are dropped on the > floor. Can be reproduced by FTP'in a 10M file *from* th

Re: [RTnet-users] Fwd: Intel e100 Driver Ported to RTNET

2010-05-19 Thread Jan Kiszka
Scott Gilbertson wrote: >> To make your local patch to rt_e100.c as small as possible, I would >> suggest to let the custom FPGA driver export some callback registration >> interface, and then simply exchange rtdm_irq_request/free with that one. >> I don't see that this callback requires task conte