Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-03-30 Thread Bill Davidsen
Brandeburg, Jesse wrote: Roberto Nibali wrote: Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though...

RE: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-03-29 Thread Brandeburg, Jesse
Roberto Nibali wrote: >>> Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that >>> we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails >>> but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for >>> everybody. >>> >>> Needs to happen, though... >> >> It seem

Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-03-29 Thread Roberto Nibali
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were u

Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-03-28 Thread Yinghai Lu
On 3/28/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kok, Auke wrote: Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, t

Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-03-28 Thread Jeff Garzik
Kok, Auke wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e10

Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-03-28 Thread Kok, Auke
Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on s

Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-03-28 Thread Bill Davidsen
Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some IBM rackmount ser

Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-01-03 Thread Jesse Brandeburg
On 1/2/07, Eric Piel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the devices which are (supposedly) supported by eepro100 and not by e100? According to "modinfo eepro100" and "modinfo

Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-01-03 Thread Jan Kiszka
Adrian Bunk wrote: > This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. > I'm sorry to disturb the schedule, but I'm not sure right now if this pending issue of the e100 was meanwhile solved or declared a non-issue: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/8/105 Auke, can you confirm that it

Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal

2007-01-02 Thread Eric Piel
02.01.2007 22:57, Adrian Bunk wrote/a écrit: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the devices which are (supposedly) supported by eepr