Bug in 89H? 128-byte vs. 256-byte address space

B. James Phillippe bryan@terran.org
Wed Jul 22 13:18:00 1998


	A coworker of mine found what appears to be a subtle bug in the
0.89H (and previous) versions of tulip.c.  The stock tulip driver skips
detection of cards that have less than 256 bytes of PCI IO address space.
>From looking at the databook and de4x5 driver, only 0x80 bytes (128 bytes)
are needed (for 21143 chips; I don't know about other 21x4x's).  The
symptom is that some cards may not be detected.
	This diff illustrates the problem:

--- tulip.c Fri May 22 23:41:53 1998
+++ tmp/tulip.c   Tue Jul 21 10:46:50 1998
@@ -306,7 +306,7 @@
        tulip_timer },
-       "Digital DS21142/3 Tulip", 256, 0x0801fbff,
+       "Digital DS21142/3 Tulip", 128, 0x0801fbff,
        HAS_MII | HAS_MEDIA_TABLE, t21142_timer },
   { PCI_VENDOR_ID_LITEON, 0x0002,
        "Lite-On 82c168 PNIC", 256, 0x0001ebef, HAS_MII, pnic_timer },

With this change in place, all cards are detected in our system, and appear
to work normally.  Would anyone like to comment on this?  Donald?

B. James Phillippe <bryan@terran.org>
Linux Software Engineer, WGT Inc.