On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:27:16 -0800
John Ronciak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't of any problems reported against e100 that have not been
> talked about in this thread (in old ARCH types). I think the eepro100
> driver should be removed from the config "just in case" but we are in
> full sup
John W. Linville wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:27:16PM -0800, John Ronciak wrote:
Another thing is that removal of the driver (or disabling the config)
will hopefully force the issue in that people with these ARCHs will
use the e100 and if they have problems we can get them fixed in the
e1
On Tue, Jan 17, 2006 at 02:27:16PM -0800, John Ronciak wrote:
> Another thing is that removal of the driver (or disabling the config)
> will hopefully force the issue in that people with these ARCHs will
> use the e100 and if they have problems we can get them fixed in the
> e100 driver. At this
We don't of any problems reported against e100 that have not been
talked about in this thread (in old ARCH types). I think the eepro100
driver should be removed from the config "just in case" but we are in
full support of the e100 driver and if somebody says that it's not
working on one of the dif
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 04:03:40PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:19:58 +0300
> Vitaly Bordug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:18:26 +0100
> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c dr
On Sun, Jan 15, 2006 at 04:19:58PM +0300, Vitaly Bordug wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:18:26 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> >
> > Is there any known problem in e100 still preventing us from removing
> > this d
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 16:19:58 +0300
Vitaly Bordug <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:18:26 +0100
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> >
> > Is there any known problem in e100 still preventing us from removi
On Thu, 5 Jan 2006 19:18:26 +0100
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
>
> Is there any known problem in e100 still preventing us from removing
> this driver (it seems noone was able anymore to verify the ARM problem)?
>
I think
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 10:04:44PM +0100, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:57:07PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > >This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> > >
> > >Is there any known problem in e100 still preventing us from removing
> > >this driver
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 01:57:07PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> >
> >Is there any known problem in e100 still preventing us from removing
> >this driver (it seems noone was able anymore to verify the ARM problem)?
>
> Still waiting
Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
Is there any known problem in e100 still preventing us from removing
this driver (it seems noone was able anymore to verify the ARM problem)?
Still waiting to see if e100 in -mm works on ARM.
Jeff
-
Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:15:48PM +, Russell King wrote:
>> Well, I've run 2.6.15-rc2 on what I think was the ARM platform which
>> exhibited the problem, but it doesn't show up.
>
> The test was merely a "did it successfully BOOTP" because I can't
> g
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 02:39:46PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:15:48 +
>
> > I leave it up to you how to proceed. Effectively I'm now completely
> > out of the loop on this with no hardware to worry about. Sorry.
> >
> >
From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:53:19 +
> That means there's about 15 minutes left before I go to sleep before
> having to be up early tomorrow to go on a 2 hour journey to attend a
> meeting. What do you want me to do with those 15 minutes? Perform a
> mirac
From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 22:15:48 +
> I leave it up to you how to proceed. Effectively I'm now completely
> out of the loop on this with no hardware to worry about. Sorry.
>
> Finally, please don't assign any blame for this in my direction; I
> reported
On Wed, Nov 23, 2005 at 10:15:48PM +, Russell King wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:12:28AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Russell King wrote:
> > >On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > >
> > >>This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> > >>
>
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:12:28AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> >>This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> >>
> >>Is there any reason why it should be kept?
> >
> >
> >Tt's the only driv
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:12:28AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> >>This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> >>
> >>Is there any reason why it should be kept?
> >
> >
> >Tt's the only driv
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
>
> Is there any reason why it should be kept?
>
>
> Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Can you state a reason why it is obsolete and should be removed?
IMHO this would provide
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 11:12:28AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Russell King wrote:
> >On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >
> >>This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> >>
> >>Is there any reason why it should be kept?
> >
> >
> >Tt's the only driv
Russell King wrote:
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
Is there any reason why it should be kept?
Tt's the only driver which works correctly on ARM CPUs. e100 is
basically buggy. This has been discuss
From: Russell King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 09:01:59 +
> On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
> >
> > Is there any reason why it should be kept?
>
> Tt's the only driver which works c
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 04:33:02AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch removes the obsolete drivers/net/eepro100.c driver.
>
> Is there any reason why it should be kept?
Tt's the only driver which works correctly on ARM CPUs. e100 is
basically buggy. This has been discussed here on lkml and
23 matches
Mail list logo
