Re: e1000 issue on DQ965GF board (was 24 lost ticks with 2.6.20.10 kernel)

["Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com>]

[Adding Bruce to the Cc, reply below]

Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:14:52AM -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:
> > I just checked and the fix I was referring to earlier didn't make it into 
> > 2.6.21-final. You can get 2.6.21-git1 from kernel.org which has the fix. See
> >
> > http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/snapshots/patch-2.6.21-git1.log
>
> Good. So I tried that patch (well, actually only the change visible at
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/6/268). I patched it into a 2.6.20.11 kernel,
> using the same config file as previously. The good news is that this fixes
> my issue: there are no lost ticks anymore, and the link does negotiate a
> gigabit connection. This is a great improvement for me :)
>
> I still seem to hit an issue if using the ethtool command, though.
> when using 'ethtool -s eth0 autoneg on', the link comes up at gigabit speed,
> but a couple seconds later is comes down again, and then up at 100 megabits:
>
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 1000 Mbps Full Duplex
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Down
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: NIC Link is Up 100 Mbps Full Duplex
> e1000: eth0: e1000_watchdog: 10/100 speed: disabling TSO
>
> The same thing happens if I use ifdown eth0; ifup eth0 too. Once again,
> I only observe this on my DQ965GF motherboard, the DG965RY board is fine
> (stays at gigabit speed when I issue these commands).
>
> Is this something you could easily reproduce at Intel or would you want me
> to look into that issue on my system ?

I think we have confirmed this issue and I'll work with Bruce on seeing where 
the fix went. I might give you another patch to try.

Auke
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/