Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 10 Jul 2006 10:58:02 -0700 | From | Auke Kok <> | Subject | Re: [bug] e100 bug: checksum mismatch on 82551ER rev10 |
| |
Molle Bestefich wrote: > Auke Kok wrote: >> > Every single IP130 I've had my hands on has had an EEPROM that the >> > Linux driver declared bad. >> >> that means that whoever is selling you the IP130's is consistently >> putting on >> bad EEPROMs, which is *very* bad. Which vendor is that? They can fix this >> problem for you and for *everyone* else they have sold and will sell >> IP130's >> to in the future. > > Nokia. > > Maybe they've changed the BABA magic, or the checksum logic entirely, > to prevent other software than their own OS from running.
in almost all cases where a bad EEPROM checksum is found on a board the vendor has changed settings in the EEPROM image without recalculating the checksum.
>> > I'm afraid that it's not the board that's at fault, it's the driver. >> >> No it is not. The NIC is supported (you can even call Intel for first >> line >> support) but if your vendor put a bad EEPROM image on it then all bets >> are >> off. Intel provides the vendors with the proper tools to make valid >> EEPROMs, >> the driver checks them for a very good reason. > > You're completely sure that the EEPROM check is correct for this > particular revision of this particular chip?
It's valid for every piece of network silicon that has an EEPROM ever made.
> (Do you happen to know where the EEPROM is located, by the way?
it's in the NIC itself. In your case, where you have 3 separate chips, there will be 3 different EEPROM images total.
>> How can you tell? Do you know if jumbo frames work correctly? Is the >> device >> properly checksumming? is flow control working properly? These and >> many, many >> more settings are determined by the EEPROM. Seemingly it may work >> correctly, >> but there is no guarantee whatsoever that it will work correctly at >> all if the >> checksum is bad. Again, you can lose data, or worse, you could >> corrupt memory >> in the system causing massive failure (DMA timings, etc). Unlikely? >> sure, but >> not impossible. > > They've been used in production environments for years.
all the more reason to suggest that Nokia is forgetting to update the checksums :)
Cheers,
Auke - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |