On Sunday 08 June 2014 12:45:10 David Goodenough wrote:
> I came across a mini-pci board that had got lost in the back of a cupboard.
> Needing a couple of extra ethernet ports on a board I thought I had found
> the solution to my problem. The board is a BVM MP-551, which has one RJ45
y I asked the linux e1000 list for help rather than asking Intel!
David
>
> Todd Fujinaka
> Software Application Engineer
> Networking Division (ND)
> Intel Corporation
> todd.fujin...@intel.com
> (503) 712-4565
>
> -Original Message-
> From: David Goode
>
> -----Original Message-
> From: David Goodenough [mailto:david.goodeno...@linkchoose.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2014 4:45 AM
> To: e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [E1000-devel] 82551QM problem
>
> I came across a mini-pci board that had got lost in
I came across a mini-pci board that had got lost in the back of a cupboard.
Needing a couple of extra ethernet ports on a board I thought I had found
the solution to my problem. The board is a BVM MP-551, which has one RJ45
on the board and another on a daughterboard.
When I install the board it
On Friday 26 June 2009, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Ronciak, John wrote:
> > >Well I completed the build, but now it complains that that it
> > >can not load
> > >the firmware (e100/d102e_ocode.bin). Something in the kernel or build
> >
-
> "...that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you
> destroy.", B. Obama, 2009
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: David Goodenough [mailto:david.goodeno...@linkchoose.co.uk]
> >Sent:
On Thursday 25 June 2009, David Goodenough wrote:
> On Thursday 25 June 2009, Ronciak, John wrote:
> > OK, so I think we were mis-reading some of this. Ok so there were some
> > changes to the e100 driver that went in upstream over the last year or
> > so. I think these we
you on what you can build, not what you
> destroy.", B. Obama, 2009
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: David Goodenough [mailto:david.goodeno...@linkchoose.co.uk]
> >Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:42 AM
> >To: Ronciak, John
> >Cc: e1000-devel@lists.s
current code.
David
>
>
> Cheers,
> John
> ---
> "...that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you
> destroy.", B. Obama, 2009
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: David G
ur people will judge you on what you can build, not what you
> destroy.", B. Obama, 2009
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: David Goodenough [mailto:david.goodeno...@linkchoose.co.uk]
> >Sent: Wednesday, June 24, 2009 1:31 PM
> >To: Ronciak, John
> >Cc:
eers,
> John
> ---
> "...that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you
> destroy.", B. Obama, 2009
>
> >-Original Message-
> >From: David Goodenough [mailto:david.goodeno...@linkchoose.co.uk]
> >Se
A few weeks ago I chimed in on the debate about eepro100 because I had
a bunch of boards with 82559ER chips on them. I had found that they worked
with the eepro100, but not e100. I then noticed the debate about non-MII
support, and assumed (in ignorance) that this was my problem. But reading
the
On Tuesday 02 June 2009, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 10:24:12PM +0100, Andreas Mohr wrote:
> > The whole thing has been somewhat low-priority indeed
> > given the probable age of some non-MII contenders. OTOH it would be quite
> > sad (and locally problematic) to see suppo
On Thursday 21 May 2009, David Goodenough wrote:
> I have several boards (Compulab-586) and some IBM servers which I
> used to have to run with eepro100. This I understand from various
> documents that Google found is because they need non-MII support,
> which the e100 module d
I have several boards (Compulab-586) and some IBM servers which I
used to have to run with eepro100. This I understand from various
documents that Google found is because they need non-MII support,
which the e100 module does not have.
eepro100 seems to have been removed in 2.6.29, so I am left h
15 matches
Mail list logo
