[eepro100] Lockup with Intel PRO/100+ Dual Port Server Adapte r

[Cagle, John]

This doesn't sound right that you can assign the same IRQ to both ports.

I'm pretty sure that on a dual-port PCI NIC, port 1 will be wired to INTA
and port 2 will be wired to INTB (signals on the PCI bus).  Since they're
not on the same wire (unless INTA and INTB are tied together on your
particular PC) I don't think they can share the same interrupt.  That might
be your problem.

Regards,
John Cagle
Principal Member Technical Staff
Industry Standard Server Group
Compaq Computer Corporation

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Lorenzen [mailto:tl@theory.ki.ku.dk]
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2001 8:54 AM
> To: Donald Becker
> Cc: eepro100@scyld.com
> Subject: Re: [eepro100] Lockup with Intel PRO/100+ Dual Port Server
> Adapter
> 
> 
>      Hi'
> 
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Donald Becker wrote:
> 
> >>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2001, Thomas Lorenzen wrote:
> >>> 
> >>> >    I have recently purchased an Intel PRO/100+ Dual Port
> >>> > Server Adapter, which chips states to be of type 82558.
> >>> > 
> >>> >    At first the two ports on the nic were detected with
> >>> > different irq's, but after some time I got the machine to
> >>> > actually detect the two ports on the nic with the same irq.
> >>> 
> >>> Many older machines have a BIOS bug that incorrectly 
> assigns different
> >>> IRQs to devices behind a bus bridge.  This problem 
> commonly affected 4
> >>> port tulip cards, and the tulip driver has an ugly hack 
> to deal with the
> >>> problem.
> >>> 
> >>> What did you do to fix the problem on your machine?
> 
>    In the bios it was actually possible to specify the irq
> numbers, which the system should assign to the different pci
> slots. I then just assigned two times irq 9, and then the
> two ports were configured to both use irq 9. Aparently,
> however, that did not do such a good job anyway.
> 
> >>> >    However, I seem to be having problems bringing up the
> >>> > interfaces, as doing so tends to hard lock the machine.
> >>> > Sometimes it hard locks already at 'ifconfig eth0', other
> >>> > times it hard locks at 'ifconfig eth1', and I have also
> >>> > experienced a hard lock after some ping activity to the
> >>> > ports. These lock ups occur regardless of the driver being
> >>> > build into the kernel or loaded as a module. Furthermore
> >>> > both the 2.2.16 shipped driver and the newest scyld driver
> >>> > as well as the e100 driver from intel shows these symptoms.
> >>> 
> >>> What driver version are you using?
> >>> eepro100.c v1.13 of 1/9/2001 has work-around for a hang 
> that occurs with
> >>> some firmware version the first time the interface is 
> started after a
> >>> warm boot.
> >>> 
> >>> The work-around is an ugly hack that should never be required, a
> >>> udelay(10) after a register write during initialization, 
> but it seems to
> >>> reliably do the trick.
> 
>    Ok, it is almost weekend here, so I will try v1.13 later
> on and inform you later on.
> 
>    I have been suggested to try the stuff on a newer
> machine. My test machine is an old 486. Do you have any idea
> about, if that could solve the problem. When working
> properly, the board is planned to go into a PIII SMP
> machine.
> 
>    Best Regards.
> 
>      Thomas.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Cand. Scient. Thomas Lorenzen               Phone : (+ 45) 35 32 02 50
> Department of Chemistry                       Fax : (+ 45) 35 32 02 59
> University of Copenhagen                     Mail : tl@theory.ki.ku.dk
> DK, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark   Homepage : http://theochem.ki.ku.dk/~tl
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> eepro100 mailing list
> eepro100@scyld.com
> http://www.scyld.com/mailman/listinfo/eepro100
>