On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 12:01:34AM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Don Fry wrote: > >I noticed this morning that I had the polarity wrong in my patch > >yesterday for older chips in the pcnet32_suspend routine. Here is the > >correct patch to test. > > > >>A change I made for 2.6.17 and another for 2.6.18 do not work on older > >>pcnet32 chips which I do not have access to. Please test this patch if > >>you have access to a 79C970, 79C974, or 79C965 (VLB) version of the > >>pcnet32 and let me know if it solves any problems. I have tested with a > >>79C970A, 79C971, 79C972, 79C973, 79C975, 79C976, and 79C978 and the > >>changes work as expected. > > Did testing succeed? >
I have not heard anything about testing results yet. I have tested successfully with the hardware I have, but there are at least three variants of the chip that I have not been able to find. "It should work" are the famous last words of most programmers ;-(. I received an email from Martin on Saturday that he had been traveling and would get back to me. I believe that the patch will resolve the issue with older cards. The patch is no worse than what is in 2.6.18-rc4 today, but removing the offending patch is also an option. The patch also addresses an issue raised by Yuri Strelenko that the changes in 2.6.17 caused his 79C970 to stop working. I have sent him a patch as well, but have heard nothing from him. Those changes I am much more positive about, but I would like confirmation that I have not broken something else. When I have some positive results, I will add the signed-off-by line and resubmit the patch or ask for the old patch to be removed. When does the patch need to be submitted in order to be included in 2.6.18? > signed-off-by? > > Jeff -- Don Fry [EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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
