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

Re: DM9102A & Netra X1 (Was Re: Netra X1 boot getting closer)


Sorry for the delayed response hope that it is still of some use.

Ben Collins writes:
 > On Sun, Aug 05, 2001 at 05:50:53PM +0100, Richard Mortimer wrote:
 > > Hi,
 > > 
 > > David S. Miller writes:
 > >  > 
 > >  > Richard Mortimer writes:
 > >  >  > static int csr0 = 0x00800000 | 0x9000
 > >  > 
 > >  > Can you try values 0x00e00000 or just plain 0x0?
 > >  > 
 > >  > These are the values the dmfe.c driver uses.
 > > 
 > > Well the Tx timeouts seem to have stopped happening without me doing
 > > anything! I did try a number of different values - as follows
 > Well, I've gotten serial console to an X1 to test out a new set of
 > debian tftp install images (thanks to Adam McKenna). Boots fine, and
 > the ethernet devices come up, however I'm having no luck getting things
 > working.

Can you point me to the tftp install images (are they somewhere to
download) I will try them on my setup and see what happens.

 > Basically pings work, but the tx is recorded as a carrier error. If I
 > telnet to a known closed port, I get a connection refused, but if I
 > telnet to a known open port, the connection hangs and I get this to
 > kernel log:
 > UDP: bad checksum. From to ulen 58
 > UDP: bad checksum. From to ulen 58
 > UDP: bad checksum. From to ulen 58
 > UDP: bad checksum. From to ulen 51
 > UDP: bad checksum. From to ulen 51
 > UDP: bad checksum. From to ulen 51

Are you seeing this on the X1 or on your other machines? I'm guessing
that is was the X1 but I just want to check.

Hmmm you say that you were using telnet but the bad checksums are from
UDP with services dns (53) and netbios-ns (137). 

 > Note, is the local interface, and the connection I tried was
 > to, which is also the nameserver. Sorry I can't get
 > tcpdumps, since these are base disks, and I've no way to remotely get
 > anything else on there right now.

A few things to try. How about sending larger ping packets 

ping -s 1000

or something similar.

Was this on 100 base-T or 10 base-T connections? Full or half
duplex. I have only got a 10 base-T connection at the moment maybe
that has something to do with it.

 > This is with a current vger CVS kernel (as of a few hours ago).

Yup, that looks to be what I was expecting although I have checked
about a week later!

 > Any ideas, or other tests? Note, I did check to be sure that the test to
 > clear the MRM was getting done. Cards are detected as so:
 > eth0: Davicom DM9102/DM9102A rev 49 at 0x1fe02010100, EEPROM not present, 00:4C:69:6E:75:79, IRQ 6867584.
 > eth1: Davicom DM9102/DM9102A rev 49 at 0x1fe02010000, EEPROM not present, 00:4C:69:6E:75:7A, IRQ 6866880.
 > (the prom reports 0:3:ba:4:d6:84, weird)
 > I'm using eth1, since that is what the person has connected.

One thing to note. It seems that eth0 is what Solaris calls dmfe1 and
that eth1 is dmfe0 I guess that this doesn't make a difference. I use
eth1 too!

Richard Mortimer - richm@oldelvet dot netscapeonline dot co dot uk

Reply to: