[PATCH] Re: Linksys PCM200
Ketrien I. Saihr-Kesenchedra
ketrien at error404.nls.net
Sat Oct 23 18:42:33 PDT 2004
soralx at cydem.org wrote:
>I've done a little testing under various loads. The driver switches
>chip to store and forward mode soon during initial use after attaching
>(I also get few messages about watchdog timeouts together with
>"increasing TX threshold"). But it seems to work OK.
>I haven't done any serious performance testing (maximum speed it
>could reach was ~ 5Mb/s on 100baseTX/FD) nor attach/detach tests.
>
>
That sounds about right. I don't have time to figure out a patch, since
I've not figured out if_de's quirk handling, but you may want to try
treating this card like a Cobalt Networks. I'm presuming (haven't
watched the thread that closely) that it's a straight MII versus
Cobalt's MII-on-SIO.
> <>I don't see a way how it could break other cards' functionality -
> should be no concerns here
D-Link isn't the only 0x00a8; The AboCom FE2500MX bears 0x13d1 0xab08.
>I don't see a real reson not to use more complete description. There are few resons to use it:
>
>0. More info is _always_ better. In any case, the message will take 2 lines on console, so shortening the description will not gain anything
>
>
Yes, it does. It gains readability. Long descriptions should generally
be reserved for pciconf -lv and driver comments. The AL985C as found on
the D-Link PCM200 should be identical to the AboCom FE2500MX. (The only
difference I've seen between the two is that the FE2500MX has AboCom's
VendorID. Also; AboCom makes an AL985C called the PCM200. Draw your own
conclusions.)
> <>1. the description in `pciconf -lv` does not show card's version and
> chipset
No, it doesn't, and really shouldn't. The revision is read from card
SROM or set in the RevID, e.g. 0x03 or 0xa3, etcetera.
> <>2. when PCI IDs for previous card versions will be added, the
> description will
> need to be changed anyway to include the version number
Only because D-Link has a 'change everything except the model name'
fetish. Unless D-Link pulled the same crap they did with the DWL-520 and
DWL-650, personally I don't see any compelling reason to include chipset
and revision in the dev's desc. Now, if D-Link pulled the same crap on
this as they did with the DWL-520, I'd say just slap Rev.D in there;
there's no need for chipset name, and it's enough to differentiate from
Rev.C1 which uses some other chipset.
But hey, just my $0.02USD (or ~$0.0158247EUR at current exchange rates.)
-ksaihr
More information about the freebsd-hackers
mailing list