On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 11:09, linux-os wrote:
> You just need to load mii first. Both of these drivers are working
> fine on 2.6.10.
Huh? You have 82556 cards working with eepro100 or e100 on 2.6.10?
Neither driver will work on any card without mii loaded.
-scott
-
To unsubscribe from this list
On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, Scott Feldman wrote:
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 04:48, Meelis Roos wrote:
See if eepro100 works on your 82556 cards. I would be surprised if it
does. If it does, maybe it's not that much trouble to add support to
e100. Let us know.
I did add the PCI ID to e100 to to try it with bo
On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 04:48, Meelis Roos wrote:
> > See if eepro100 works on your 82556 cards. I would be surprised if it
> > does. If it does, maybe it's not that much trouble to add support to
> > e100. Let us know.
>
> I did add the PCI ID to e100 to to try it with both drivers.
>
> In shor
See if eepro100 works on your 82556 cards. I would be surprised if it
does. If it does, maybe it's not that much trouble to add support to
e100. Let us know.
I did add the PCI ID to e100 to to try it with both drivers.
In short: both eepro100 and e100 have problems loading the eeprom and
don't
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:45:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> (GregKH cc'd for his deprecated list)
It's a file in the Documentation/ directory, feel free to just patch it,
adding entries for these drivers.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ke
On Fri, 2005-01-28 at 01:33, Meelis Roos wrote:
> eepro100 also drives 82556-based cards. I have a couple of EtherExpress
> PRO/100 Smart cards, Intel identifier is PILA8485, PCI ID is 8086:1228.
> e100 doesn't support them, I'm told eepro100 works (I have not verified
> it myself). I can probably
eepro100 also drives 82556-based cards. I have a couple of EtherExpress
PRO/100 Smart cards, Intel identifier is PILA8485, PCI ID is 8086:1228.
e100 doesn't support them, I'm told eepro100 works (I have not verified
it myself). I can probably get a card or to for testing with Linux.
--
Meelis Roo
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:58:37 -0800
Scott Feldman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> eepro100 does a copy if pkt_len < rx_copybreak, otherwise it send up the
> skb and allocates and links a new one in it's place (see
> speedo_rx_link).
My bad, you're right. So I wonder too what the difference
is that m
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 16:48, David S. Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:14:30 +
> Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The fact of the matter is that eepro100.c works on ARM, e100.c doesn't.
> > There's a message from me back on 30th June 2004 at about 10:30 BST on
> > this very
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:14:30 +
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The fact of the matter is that eepro100.c works on ARM, e100.c doesn't.
> There's a message from me back on 30th June 2004 at about 10:30 BST on
> this very list which generated almost no interest from anyone...
I see.
On Fri, Jan 28, 2005 at 12:14:30AM +, Russell King wrote:
> The fact of the matter is that eepro100.c works on ARM, e100.c doesn't.
Hmmm, I recall e100 working fine on a Radisys ENP-2611, which has a
IXP2400 (xscale) in big-endian mode, running 2.6. This particular
board had its root fs NFS-
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:31:14PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> Therefore the only missing sync would be of the new RX descriptor
> when linking things in like that, ie. at the end of e100_rx_alloc_skb()
> if rx->prev->skb is non-NULL.
And that is inherently unsafe, since the chip may be modify
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:57:25 +
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Has e100 actually been fixed to use the PCI DMA API correctly yet?
It seems to be doing the right thing. I see the DMA sync calls
(properly using cpu vs. device syncing variants) at the right
spots, and the only thing t
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:45:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 3) eepro100
>
> Unmaintained; users should use e100.
>
> When I last mentioned eepro100 was going away, I got a few private
> emails saying complaining about issues not yet taken care of in e100.
> eepro100 will not be removed until
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 03:45:40PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> 1) iphase (iph5526 a.k.a. drivers/net/fc/*)
>
> Been broken since 2.3 or 2.4. Only janitors have kept it compiling.
No, it doesn't even compile, and didn't so for more than two years.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "
(GregKH cc'd for his deprecated list)
Though this has already been mentioned, I thought I would send out a
reminder. The following net drivers are slated for removal "soon", in
the next kernel version or so:
1) iphase (iph5526 a.k.a. drivers/net/fc/*)
Been broken since 2.3 or 2.4. Only janitor
16 matches
Mail list logo
