Frans Pop wrote:
> There is one thing I don't understand, but that may well be just me...
>
> From Linus' original patch:
>> +++ b/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
>> + INTEL_E1000_ETHERNET_DEVICE(0x108C),
>
> So, apparently support for 8086:108c was removed from the e1000
> driver.
When it w
Adrian Bunk wrote:
>> Jeff, Auke, would something like this be acceptable? It makes it very
>> obvious in the driver table which entries are for the PCIE versions that
>> would be handled by the E1000E driver if it is enabled..
>
> I don't like it:
> We should aim at having exactly one driver for
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:51:04PM +1100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >
> > Andrew was concerned about this when the driver was in -mm.
> > He asked for a patch that would set E1000E to same value as E1000
> > and I supplied that. Auke acked it IIRC.
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>>> Andrew was concerned about this when the driver was in -mm.
>>> He asked for a patch that would set E1000E to same value as E1000
>>> and I supplied that. Auke acked it IIRC. Other people vetoed it. :(
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Andrew was concerned about this when the driver was in -mm.
He asked for a patch that would set E1000E to same value as E1000
and I supplied that. Auke acked it IIRC. Other people vetoed it. :(
Yeah, I've been discussing with J
