Re: 2.2.15 with eepro100: eth0: Too much work at interrupt

From: Jeff Garzik (jgarzik@mandrakesoft.com)
Date: Tue May 23 2000 - 03:51:56 EST

Next message: Turbo Fredriksson: "Re: Promise Ultra66 -> FastTrak66"
Previous message: Christoph Rohland: "Re: Correction: 2.2.15-SMP, eepro100, elusive boot failure"
In reply to: Dragan Stancevic: "Re: 2.2.15 with eepro100: eth0: Too much work at interrupt"
Next in thread: Robert Stockmann: "Re: 2.2.15 with eepro100: eth0: Too much work at interrupt"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dragan Stancevic wrote:
> I think that inw there is just for timing purposes since the
> card/eeprom specification doesnt require anything else than a delay.

Think below card/eeprom level. If PCI writes follow the foo_delay()
macro call for example, then you can affect program operation by using a
udelay() call without first executing readX()

-- Jeff Garzik | Liberty is always dangerous, but Building 1024 | it is the safest thing we have. MandrakeSoft, Inc. | -- Harry Emerson Fosdick

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

Next message: Turbo Fredriksson: "Re: Promise Ultra66 -> FastTrak66"
Previous message: Christoph Rohland: "Re: Correction: 2.2.15-SMP, eepro100, elusive boot failure"
In reply to: Dragan Stancevic: "Re: 2.2.15 with eepro100: eth0: Too much work at interrupt"
Next in thread: Robert Stockmann: "Re: 2.2.15 with eepro100: eth0: Too much work at interrupt"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:23 EST