NetBSD-Bugs archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: port-hp700/35531: iee0 does not work on 735/99

The following reply was made to PR port-hp700/35531; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Nick Hudson <>
To: Izumi Tsutsui <>
Subject: Re: port-hp700/35531: iee0 does not work on 735/99
Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 19:15:01 +0100

 On Tuesday 05 May 2009 13:26:42 Izumi Tsutsui wrote:
 > I wrote:
 > > wrote:
 > > > I've tested this on my 715/50 against netbsd-5 as I've got too many
 > > > changes in my -current source trees :)
 > >
 > > The same patch can be applied to -current too ;-)
 yep :)
 > Umm, on -current iee(4) even without my patch gets
 > timeouts and errors on heavy load:
 > ---
 > iee0: iee_watchdog: transmit timeout 22
 > iee0: iee_intr: receive error 1, rfd_status=0x0000, rfd_count=0x0000
 > ---
 I've briefly tested by scp'ing a kernel to a hp715/50 
 notsonoisy# dmesg | grep iee
 iee0 at gsc0 hpa 0xf0826000 path 2/0/2 irq 8 ipl 2: Intel 82596DX/SX address 
 and a hp715/64
 hp715-64# dmesg | grep iee
 iee0 at gsc0 hpa 0xf0107000 path 2/0/2 irq 8 ipl 2: Intel 82596CA address 
 and neither prints the watchdog message.
 > Could newer pmap require more strict bus_dmamap_sync(9) calls
 > in MI drivers?  IIRC hppa doesn't have BUS_DMA_COHERENT support.
 > (I don't know if it will work on other newer machines like 712)
 All bus_dmamem_alloc memory is mapped uncacheable regardless of pmap, so I 
 don't think this is the problem.
 > I'll commit MI i82596 changes anyway, but should we still disable
 > iee(4) on its hp700 attachment, and enable it only in netbsd-5 branch?
 > (though ie(4) also gets timeouts even on netbsd-5...)
 I still think we go with iee(4) everywhere and kill ie(4).
 > ---
 > Izumi Tsutsui

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index