On 20-Sep-2002 Stephen McKay wrote:
> On Thursday, 19th September 2002, John Baldwin wrote:
>
>>--- if_dc.c 4 Sep 2002 18:14:17 -0000 1.77
>>+++ if_dc.c 19 Sep 2002 20:57:03 -0000
>>@@ -1366,7 +1370,8 @@
>> for (i = 0; i < DC_TIMEOUT; i++) {
>> isr = CSR_READ_4(sc, DC_ISR);
>> if (isr & DC_ISR_TX_IDLE &&
> - (isr & DC_ISR_RX_STATE) == DC_RXSTATE_STOPPED)
>>+ ((isr & DC_ISR_RX_STATE) == DC_RXSTATE_STOPPED ||
>>+ (isr & DC_ISR_RX_STATE) == DC_RXSTATE_WAIT))
>> break;
>> DELAY(10);
>> }
>
> 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. Perhaps
we should do the same here? This would be similar to what we do in
dc_tx_underrun() where we only make sure the TX is idle.
--
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
