[lkml]   [2006]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: My vote against eepro* removal
On Fri, 2006-01-20 at 12:55 +0300, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > Analysis of e100:
> > * If I comment out the whole body of e100_watchdog except for the
> > timer re-registration, the delays are gone (so it is really the
> > body of e100_watchdog). However, this makes eth0 non-functional.
> > * Commenting out parts of it, I found out that most of the time
> > goes into its first half: The code from mii_ethtool_gset to
> > mii_check_link (including) makes the big difference, as far as
> > I can tell especially mii_ethtool_gset.
> Each MDIO read can take upto 2 msecs (!) and at least 20 usecs in
> e100,
> and this runs in timer handler.
> Concider attaching (only compile tested) patch which moves e100
> watchdog
> into workqueue.

Seems like the important question is, why does e100 need a watchdog if
eepro100 works fine without one? Isn't the point of a watchdog in this
context to work around other bugs in the driver (or the hardware)?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-01-21 01:43    [W:0.047 / U:1.312 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site