try to fix problem on the trizeps board DM9000 error: status check fail: 0x6d

According to the Application Notes of the DM9000, only the 2 bits 0:1 of the status byte need to be checked to identify a valid packet in the fifo

But, The several different Application Notes do not all speak the same language on these bits. They do not disagree, but only 1 Application Note noted explicitly that only these 2 bits need to be checked. Even the datasheets do not mention anything about these 2 bits.

Because the old code, and the kernel check the whole byte, I left this piece untouched.

However, I tested all board/DM9000[A|E|EP] devices with this 2 bit check, so it should work.

Notice, that the 2nd iteration through this receive loop (when a 2nd packet is in the fifo) is much shorter now, compared to the older U-boot driver code, so that we can maybe run into a hardware condition now that was never seen before, or maybe was seen very unfrequently.

Signed-off-by Remy Bohmer <[email protected]>

I can't get this to apply. Please re-base after applying your 6-patch set and the one that changes the order of rx status processing (or against the current net tree would be even better).

Remy,

Quoted 14 lines · Remy Bohmer

According to the Application Notes of the DM9000, only the 2 bits 0:1 of the status byte need to be checked to identify a valid packet in the fifo

But, The several different Application Notes do not all speak the same language on these bits. They do not disagree, but only 1 Application Note noted explicitly that only these 2 bits need to be checked. Even the datasheets do not mention anything about these 2 bits.

Because the old code, and the kernel check the whole byte, I left this piece untouched.

However, I tested all board/DM9000[A|E|EP] devices with this 2 bit check, so it should work.

Quoted 7 lines

Notice, that the 2nd iteration through this receive loop (when a 2nd packet is in the fifo) is much shorter now, compared to the older U-boot driver code, so that we can maybe run into a hardware condition now that was never seen before, or maybe was seen very unfrequently.

Signed-off-by Remy Bohmer <[email protected]>

I can't get this to apply. Please re-base after applying your 6-patch set and the one that changes the order of rx status processing (or against the current net tree would be even better).

regards,
Ben

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
U-Boot-Users mailing list
U-Boot-Users at lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/u-boot-users

Hello Ben,

Quoted 4 lines

I can't get this to apply. Please re-base after applying your 6-patch set and the one that changes the order of rx status processing (or against the current net tree would be even better).

I just pulled the net repo and I see the problem:
You forgot to apply patch number 5 of my series of 6... The one that modifies the eth_rx routine. (The patch of which it was all about ;-))

Quoted 10 lines · Remy Bohmer

Hello Ben,

Quoted 5 lines

I can't get this to apply. Please re-base after applying your 6-patch set and the one that changes the order of rx status processing (or against the current net tree would be even better).

Quoted 6 lines

I just pulled the net repo and I see the problem:
You forgot to apply patch number 5 of my series of 6... The one that modifies the eth_rx routine. (The patch of which it was all about ;-))

Chalk it up to git ineptitude on my part. If you look here:

http://git.denx.de/?p=u-boot/u-boot-net.git;a=summary

You'll see that Patch #5 is in the changelog, but if you look at the commitdiff you'll see that I really just added a new file called ".dotest/patch" when I fixed the whitespace issue manually. D'oh!

The net repo is now correct, I believe, but this patch still doesn't apply. I think it's because I had to manually edit patch #5, and this patch is touching the same code. Please rebase and resubmit.

(e.g. the final fix for the trizeps board lacks)