On Sun, Oct 29, 2006 at 11:15:28AM -0700, Ray Lehtiniemi wrote:
> > Index: linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.19-rc3.orig/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> > +++ linux-2.6.19-rc3/drivers/net/arm/ep93xx_eth.c
> > @@ -230,8 +230,9 @@ static int ep93xx_rx(struct net_device *
> > " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
> >
> > if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT0_RWE)) {
> > - printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
> > - " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
> > + if (!(rstat0 & RSTAT_OE))
> > + printk(KERN_NOTICE "ep93xx_rx: receive error "
> > + " %.8x %.8x\n", rstat0, rstat1);
> >
> > ep->stats.rx_errors++;
> > if (rstat0 & RSTAT0_OE)
>
> i got a compile error: please s/RSTAT_OE/RSTAT0_OE/ in this patch.
Whoops, I thought I sent the right one. :(
> Also, is it possible for any other error bits to be set at the same
> time as OE? such bits would not be printed to the log in this case.
Not sure, but arguably, this wouldn't be very interesting. Actually,
now I'm wondering whether we should just remove the printk altogether.
cheers,
Lennert
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
