On Friday 07 May 2004 03:08 pm, Scott Long wrote:
> John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Thursday 06 May 2004 04:47 pm, Scott Long wrote:
> >>Søren Schmidt wrote:
> >>>Petri Helenius wrote:
> I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
> with broken BIOS. I suspect you get a
John Baldwin wrote:
On Thursday 06 May 2004 04:47 pm, Scott Long wrote:
Søren Schmidt wrote:
Petri Helenius wrote:
I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
Nope. no messages to that effect, oh an
On Thursday 06 May 2004 04:47 pm, Scott Long wrote:
> Søren Schmidt wrote:
> > Petri Helenius wrote:
> >> I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
> >> with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
> >
> > Nope. no messages to that effect, oh a
Scott Long wrote:
I'm looking a t a similar system right now and it definitely looks
like an interrupt routing problem, not a driver problem. The
interesting thing is that (with 5.2-current as of two days ago)
disabling neither
ACPI nor APIC helps. I guess that we might want to get John Baldw
Søren Schmidt wrote:
Petri Helenius wrote:
I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
Nope. no messages to that effect, oh and it works in windows(tm)...
The last thing I see if I try to use em0 is:
On 06-May-2004 Andre Oppermann wrote:
> Søren Schmidt wrote:
>>
>> Andre Oppermann wrote:
>> > What MIIPHY does the card have?
>>
>> No idea, builtin of sorts, there is no mention of it in the probe, and
>> no HW to see on the boards. I have two different boards with these on
>> them both show th
Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> Søren Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > > Søren Schmidt wrote:
> > >
> > >>Petri Helenius wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
> > >>>with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when boot
Søren Schmidt wrote:
Nope. no messages to that effect, oh and it works in windows(tm)...
The last thing I see if I try to use em0 is:
em0: Link is up 100 Mbps Full Duplex
and then the system locks up hard.
Would you mind posting full dmesg output?
Pete
_
Søren Schmidt wrote:
Petri Helenius wrote:
I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
Nope. no messages to that effect, oh and it works in windows(tm)...
The last thing I see if I try to use em0 is:
Søren Schmidt wrote:
>
> Andre Oppermann wrote:
> > Søren Schmidt wrote:
> >
> >>Petri Helenius wrote:
> >>
> >>>I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
> >>>with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
> >>
> >>Nope. no messages to that eff
Andre Oppermann wrote:
Søren Schmidt wrote:
Petri Helenius wrote:
I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
Nope. no messages to that effect, oh and it works in windows(tm)...
The last thing I see if
Søren Schmidt wrote:
>
> Petri Helenius wrote:
> > I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
> > with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
>
> Nope. no messages to that effect, oh and it works in windows(tm)...
>
> The last thing I see if
Petri Helenius wrote:
I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
Nope. no messages to that effect, oh and it works in windows(tm)...
The last thing I see if I try to use em0 is:
em0: Link is up 100 M
I´m highly confident that this is a case of integrated "CSA" ethernet
with broken BIOS. I suspect you get an message about that when booting.
Pete
Søren Schmidt wrote:
John Polstra wrote:
On 05-May-2004 Søren Schmidt wrote:
For what its worth I have problems with one em based interface as
well,
I cannot boot the system with em0 after FreeBSD 5.2.1-RELEASE-p3..
it did work with 5.2-RELEASE-p1, though.
See: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=65282
One month is over since I submitted the pr, but nobody has
looked at it yet.
Stefan Bethke wrote:
Am 05.05.2004 um 13:31 schrieb Søren Sc
Am 05.05.2004 um 13:31 schrieb Søren Schmidt:
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:42:48PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
+> Hi.
+> +> I've problems with em(4) and IPSEC/FAST_IPSEC and TCP_STREAM
netperf test.
+> While running netperf tests between two FreeBSD machines directly
On 05-May-2004 Søren Schmidt wrote:
> John Polstra wrote:
>> Are either of the IRQs (10 and 19) shared with other devices?
>
> Yes, the working one is shared with an (unused) USB port
I was hoping the failing IRQ would be shared. So much for that
idea. :-)
John
_
John Polstra wrote:
On 05-May-2004 Søren Schmidt wrote:
For what its worth I have problems with one em based interface as well,
it locks the machine solid when used:
em0: port
0xb000-0xb01f mem 0xfb10-0xfb11 irq 10 at device 1.0 on pci1
em0: Reserved 0x2 bytes for rid 0x10 type 3 at
On 05-May-2004 Søren Schmidt wrote:
> For what its worth I have problems with one em based interface as well,
> it locks the machine solid when used:
>
> em0: port
> 0xb000-0xb01f mem 0xfb10-0xfb11 irq 10 at device 1.0 on pci1
> em0: Reserved 0x2 bytes for rid 0x10 type 3 at 0xfb100
Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:42:48PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
+> Hi.
+>
+> I've problems with em(4) and IPSEC/FAST_IPSEC and TCP_STREAM netperf test.
+> While running netperf tests between two FreeBSD machines directly connected
+> em0 goes down once every few min
On Wed, May 05, 2004 at 12:42:48PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
+> Hi.
+>
+> I've problems with em(4) and IPSEC/FAST_IPSEC and TCP_STREAM netperf test.
+> While running netperf tests between two FreeBSD machines directly connected
+> em0 goes down once every few minutes and I've no idea why.
21 matches
Mail list logo