On 2014/08/14 17:09, Brad Smith wrote: > On 13/08/14 6:42 AM, David Gwynne wrote: > >ive had this for 2 years or so. updated to current again. > > > >its been tested on the following: > > > >bnx0 at pci4 dev 0 function 0 "Broadcom BCM5708" rev 0x12: apic 8 int 16 > >bnx1 at pci13 dev 0 function 0 "Broadcom BCM5708" rev 0x12: apic 8 int 16 > >bnx0: address 00:1e:4f:1b:26:53 > >brgphy0 at bnx0 phy 1: BCM5708C 10/100/1000baseT PHY, rev. 6 > >bnx1: address 00:1e:4f:1b:26:51 > >brgphy1 at bnx1 phy 1: BCM5708C 10/100/1000baseT PHY, rev. 6 > > > >itd be nice to get tests on other variants. > > > >ok? > > This is exactly the same diff that was posted in the past > and it wouldn't be any less broken on the BCM5709 chipsets > now.
Trying it on dual BCM5709 with 1500 MTU (not in a position to test jumbos there at present). One interface has vlans on, that seems OK. Another has pppoe(4) and an IP address on it to reach the router; this suffers high packet loss, similar to what I remember happening with BCM5716 in http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.os.openbsd.misc/195644/focus=195677
