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

Bug#352765: marked as done (linux-2.6: wrong drivers for tulip PCI IDs on alpha?)

Your message dated Thu, 30 Jul 2009 18:26:36 +0200
with message-id <20090730162636.GA30037@galadriel.inutil.org>
and subject line Re: linux-2.6: wrong drivers for tulip PCI IDs on alpha?
has caused the Debian Bug report #352765,
regarding linux-2.6: wrong drivers for tulip PCI IDs on alpha?
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
352765: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=352765
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: linux-2.6
Version: 2.6.15-6

Currently, the modules.pcimap for DEC tulip chips is as follows:

tulip                0x00001011 0x00000009 0xffffffff 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
tulip                0x00001011 0x00000019 0xffffffff 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
de2104x              0x00001011 0x00000002 0xffffffff 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
de2104x              0x00001011 0x00000014 0xffffffff 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
lmc                  0x00001011 0x00000009 0x00001376 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
lmc                  0x00001011 0x00000009 0xffffffff 0x00001376 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0

Presently, neither de2104x nor lmc is being included in the installer
images for etch; this is because discover1-data lists de4x5 as the module
for *all* of these PCI IDs.  With the switch to 2.6 in d-i, this means that
a number of common NICs for alpha (0002, 0014, 0009) are not being
auto-detected by udev.  The de4x5 module *can* be loaded by hand on my own
system (1011:0002), and appears to work correctly; this is the driver that
I've been using under 2.6 on my installed system.  I am also now testing
de2104x; so far, it does appear to work.

The apparent trade-off between de2104x is that de4x5 does not support
full-duplex mode, whereas I have some vague impression that de2104x didn't
work on my system in some earlier driver revision.  However, the
discover1-data changelog doesn't support this; it mentions that 1011:1002
uses de4x5 because of bug #273265, which was about tulip, not de2104x -- and
tulip doesn't detect my card at all, so there's no doubt that *that* is the
wrong driver.

Recent discussion of this issue on debian-alpha included the following
response froman Alpha expert at HP:

-------------------------------------------------------
From: Jay Estabrook <Jay.Estabrook@hp.com>
To: debian-alpha@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: testing wanted: debian-installer, now with 2.6.15
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:53:43 -0500

On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 03:41:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> So should the 21040 and 21041 be switched from de2104x to de4x5, or should
> de2104x be added to the installer?  I seem to recall that I had problems
> with de2104x on my 21040 as well; and at least in 2.6.15, the tulip driver
> doesn't work at all for my card, I have to use de4x5.

> The discover1-data package seems to have de4x5 listed for *all* of these PCI
> IDs, but I think we may be using the kernel's map now with 2.6 (via udev).

I don't know of any problems using "tulip" on the 2114x chipsets. And
I don't think full duplex will significantly increase the throughput
of a 2104x chipset, so, yes, I'd think that using de4x5 for any 2104x
and tulip fo any 2114x might be the way to go...
-------------------------------------------------------

We probably shouldn't make that change in Debian without talking to
whoever's responsible for these drivers upstream, though.  In the meantime,
I'm going to add de2104x into the d-i images.  This bug report is opened to
collect success/failure reports regarding the current driver mappings, so we
can be sure we're making an informed decision about these
historically-problematic PCI IDs.

For the record, de4x5 is currently not referenced in modules.pcimap at all,
so depending on the outcome of this bug report, it may make sense to drop it
completely from the 2.6 build...

Thanks,
-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 10:16:32PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:43:17PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Package: linux-2.6
> > Version: 2.6.15-6
> > 
> > Currently, the modules.pcimap for DEC tulip chips is as follows:
> > 
> > tulip                0x00001011 0x00000009 0xffffffff 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
> > tulip                0x00001011 0x00000019 0xffffffff 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
> > de2104x              0x00001011 0x00000002 0xffffffff 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
> > de2104x              0x00001011 0x00000014 0xffffffff 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
> > lmc                  0x00001011 0x00000009 0x00001376 0xffffffff 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
> > lmc                  0x00001011 0x00000009 0xffffffff 0x00001376 0x00000000 0x00000000 0x0
> > 
> > Presently, neither de2104x nor lmc is being included in the installer
> > images for etch; this is because discover1-data lists de4x5 as the module
> > for *all* of these PCI IDs.  With the switch to 2.6 in d-i, this means that
> > a number of common NICs for alpha (0002, 0014, 0009) are not being
> > auto-detected by udev.  The de4x5 module *can* be loaded by hand on my own
> > system (1011:0002), and appears to work correctly; this is the driver that
> > I've been using under 2.6 on my installed system.  I am also now testing
> > de2104x; so far, it does appear to work.
> > 
> > The apparent trade-off between de2104x is that de4x5 does not support
> > full-duplex mode, whereas I have some vague impression that de2104x didn't
> > work on my system in some earlier driver revision.  However, the
> > discover1-data changelog doesn't support this; it mentions that 1011:1002
> > uses de4x5 because of bug #273265, which was about tulip, not de2104x -- and
> > tulip doesn't detect my card at all, so there's no doubt that *that* is the
> > wrong driver.
> > 
> > Recent discussion of this issue on debian-alpha included the following
> > response froman Alpha expert at HP:
> > 
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > From: Jay Estabrook <Jay.Estabrook@hp.com>
> > To: debian-alpha@lists.debian.org
> > Subject: Re: testing wanted: debian-installer, now with 2.6.15
> > Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:53:43 -0500
> > 
> > On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 03:41:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > 
> > > So should the 21040 and 21041 be switched from de2104x to de4x5, or should
> > > de2104x be added to the installer?  I seem to recall that I had problems
> > > with de2104x on my 21040 as well; and at least in 2.6.15, the tulip driver
> > > doesn't work at all for my card, I have to use de4x5.
> > 
> > > The discover1-data package seems to have de4x5 listed for *all* of these PCI
> > > IDs, but I think we may be using the kernel's map now with 2.6 (via udev).
> > 
> > I don't know of any problems using "tulip" on the 2114x chipsets. And
> > I don't think full duplex will significantly increase the throughput
> > of a 2104x chipset, so, yes, I'd think that using de4x5 for any 2104x
> > and tulip fo any 2114x might be the way to go...
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > We probably shouldn't make that change in Debian without talking to
> > whoever's responsible for these drivers upstream, though.  In the meantime,
> > I'm going to add de2104x into the d-i images.  This bug report is opened to
> > collect success/failure reports regarding the current driver mappings, so we
> > can be sure we're making an informed decision about these
> > historically-problematic PCI IDs.
> > 
> > For the record, de4x5 is currently not referenced in modules.pcimap at all,
> > so depending on the outcome of this bug report, it may make sense to drop it
> > completely from the 2.6 build...
> 
> What's the status in Lenny? Is this bug still needed?

I'm going ahead and closing the bug, please reopen if the issue can still
be reproduced in Lenny or later.

Cheers,
        Moritz

--- End Message ---
Reply to: