On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 05:06:05PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> Martin Langer wrote:
> >
> >Why not writing both (ucode rev and driver version)? Something like
> >
> > "from version 4.x binary drivers (rev>0x128).\n"
> >
> >BTW, if anybody needs the relationship between ucode revsion and drive
On Wednesday 13 September 2006 00:06, Larry Finger wrote:
> Martin Langer wrote:
> >
> > Why not writing both (ucode rev and driver version)? Something like
> >
> > "from version 4.x binary drivers (rev>0x128).\n"
> >
> > BTW, if anybody needs the relationship between ucode revsion and driv
Martin Langer wrote:
Why not writing both (ucode rev and driver version)? Something like
"from version 4.x binary drivers (rev>0x128).\n"
BTW, if anybody needs the relationship between ucode revsion and driver
version then he should look at the table here:
http://www.langerland.de
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 03:29:04PM -0500, Larry Finger wrote:
> An error message is changed to a printk as the original dprintk would
> be optimized away if debugging were not enabled. If the error is triggered,
> a more meaningful message is returned.
>
>
> if ( value16 > 0x128 ) {
> -
An error message is changed to a printk as the original dprintk would
be optimized away if debugging were not enabled. If the error is triggered,
a more meaningful message is returned.
Signed-off-by: Larry Finger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
John,
This patch incorporates Michael's comments.
Larry
I
