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

Re: tg3 update for Debian 6.0 'squeeze'



On Sun, 2011-06-05 at 04:35 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2011-06-03 at 14:24 -0700, Matt Carlson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 01:56:42PM -0700, Matt Carlson wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2011 at 08:13:55PM -0700, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 22:06 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > > > The Debian kernel team regularly backports driver updates to the Linux
> > > > > kernel in stable releases to add support for new hardware.  In the
> > > > > current stable release, the Linux kernel is based on longterm series
> > > > > 2.6.32.y.
> > > > > 
> > > > > We generally prefer to cherry-pick bug fixes and new hardware support,
> > > > > but there are so many interrelated changes to tg3 since 2.6.32 that
> > > > > this seems to be impossible.  So I've prepared a backport of tg3 from
> > > > > Linux 2.6.38, which is available in the git branch:
> > > > > 
> > > > >     git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/bwh/debian-linux.git netdev-test
> > > > > 
> > > > > The kernel configuration files we use are at
> > > > > <http://kernel.alioth.debian.org/config/2.6.32-33/> (note, this site
> > > > > will be unavailable for the next few hours).
> > > > > 
> > > > > We would appreciate any help Broadcom can provide in testing this, and
> > > > > any advice on changes that should be added or reverted.
> > > > 
> > > > Full source and binary packages containing these and other backported
> > > > drivers can now be found at:
> > > > 
> > > >     http://people.debian.org/~benh/packages/
> > > > 
> > > > I have not yet received any testing feedback, and without that we will
> > > > have to defer any updates to Debian 6.0.3 (about another 3 months away).
> > > > 
> > > > Ben.
> > > 
> > > Hi Ben.  I'm going over the changes right now, and it looks like there
> > > are a lot of critical fixes that are missing.  Standby and I'll try to
> > > generate a list of patches to include.
> > 
> > Oh.  Never mind.  I didn't realize 57765 and later devices are not
> > enabled.
> 
> My understanding is that the BCM57765 was supported by tg3 in Linux
> 2.6.38 and so will be supported by this backported version.
> 
> > Here are a list of patches you might want to apply that affect
> > the rest of the devices:
> > 
> > 
> > commit fe234f0e5cbb880792d2d1ac0743cf8c07e9dde3
> > 	tg3: Fix tg3_poll_controller() passing wrong pointer to tg3_interrupt()
> 
> We already got this through stable update 2.6.32.11.
> 
> If you're looking at the source package, you'll need to run
> 'debian/rules source' to generate fully patched source in
> debian/build/source.
> 
> You'll probably find it easier to view the changes in the git branch
> though.
> 
> > commit 28b041139e344ecd0f144d6205b004ae354cfa1e
> > 	net: preserve ifreq parameter when calling generic phy_mii_ioctl().
> 
> This is an API/ABI change so we don't want it.  Did I accidentally
> include a change that depends on it?  (I would expect at least a
> compiler warning in that case.)
> 
> > commit 2ffcc981d823a0518c627ca22d51ef72d0b7ca9a
> > 	tg3: Set tx bug flags for more devices
> > commit 34eea5ac214353ccd93ef7dd8dbd10aed87f5f46
> > 	tg3: Only allow phy ioctls while netif_running
> > commit 01c3a3920f9f78866420b2004602944fca45083a
> > 	tg3: Fix NVRAM selftest
> > commit aba49f2421d5287692aee961ab4ce2981fdf4939
> > 	tg3: Disable MAC loopback test for CPMU devices
> > commit 49692ca1e686970bac5726c3fd925427bb3ae89d
> > 	tg3: Fix loopback tests
> 
> OK.

I've added these to the netdev-test branch, as referred to above.
Please check in particular the backported version of 'tg3: Set tx bug
flags for more devices'.  I will wait a few days for feedback on other
drivers before building new packages.

Ben.

> Have you had a chance to test the backported driver on an appropriate
> range of supported devices?
> 
> Ben.
> 

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: