On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 02:12:07PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:54:43AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > > just an observation that, even though 53c7xx content has bee
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 02:12:07PM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:54:43AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > > just an observation that, even though 53c7xx content has been
> > > officially removed, there are still a few d
On Sat, 9 Feb 2008, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:54:43AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > just an observation that, even though 53c7xx content has been
> > officially removed, there are still a few droppings hanging around the
> > tree:
>
> Erm. It's not just a driver,
On Sat, Feb 09, 2008 at 11:54:43AM -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> just an observation that, even though 53c7xx content has been
> officially removed, there are still a few droppings hanging around the
> tree:
Erm. It's not just a driver, it's also the name of some chips.
> $ grep -r 53c7xx *
just an observation that, even though 53c7xx content has been
officially removed, there are still a few droppings hanging around the
tree:
$ grep -r 53c7xx *
arch/m68k/Makefile:# without -fno-strength-reduce the 53c7xx.c driver fails ;-(
Documentation/scsi/sym53c8xx_2.txt:by the 53c7xx and 53c8
5 matches
Mail list logo