1 Apr 2008 02:05
Re: [PATCH] forcedeth: mac address fix
Björn Steinbrink <B.Steinbrink <at> gmx.de>
2008-04-01 00:05:02 GMT
2008-04-01 00:05:02 GMT
On 2008.03.31 16:10:34 -0500, Ayaz Abdulla wrote: > This critical patch fixes a mac address issue recently introduced. If Does "recently" mean my commit 2e3884b5b16795c03a7bf295797c1b2402885b88? If so, I like to be told directly when I break stuff(Continue reading)> the device's mac address was in correct order and the flag > NVREG_TRANSMITPOLL_MAC_ADDR_REV was set, during nv_remove the flag would > get cleared. During next load, the mac address would get reversed > because the flag is missing. Hm, but nv_remove also writes back the reversed mac address. I don't see how a plain remove/probe cycle would mess things up. > As it has been indicated previously, the flag is cleared across a low > power transition. Therefore, the driver should set the mac address back > into the reversed order when clearing the flag. That's what nv_remove is supposed to do. Is there a case where nv_remove is not called? > Also, the driver should set back the flag after a low power transition > to protect against kexec command calling nv_probe a second time. Sounds like suspend stopped calling nv_remove? That would make sense then. I never checked whether suspend ever actually did call nv_remove (I think), but as my patch worked, it basically must have done so, at least in the past, right? Thanks,
> the device's mac address was in correct order and the flag
> NVREG_TRANSMITPOLL_MAC_ADDR_REV was set, during nv_remove the flag would
> get cleared. During next load, the mac address would get reversed
> because the flag is missing.
Hm, but nv_remove also writes back the reversed mac address. I don't see
how a plain remove/probe cycle would mess things up.
> As it has been indicated previously, the flag is cleared across a low
> power transition. Therefore, the driver should set the mac address back
> into the reversed order when clearing the flag.
That's what nv_remove is supposed to do. Is there a case where nv_remove
is not called?
> Also, the driver should set back the flag after a low power transition
> to protect against kexec command calling nv_probe a second time.
Sounds like suspend stopped calling nv_remove? That would make sense
then. I never checked whether suspend ever actually did call nv_remove
(I think), but as my patch worked, it basically must have done so, at
least in the past, right?
Thanks,
RSS Feed