On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Pekka J Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > Neither of which seem like acceptable solutions for a 2.6.23 -> 2.6.24
> > > _regression_. Or maybe I am just too naive to believe Linus' statement
> > > on not letting
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > Neither of which seem like acceptable solutions for a 2.6.23 -> 2.6.24
> > _regression_. Or maybe I am just too naive to believe Linus' statement
> > on not letting the kernel regress...
>
> So, please sign-off the patch that we have, if you think
On Monday 25 February 2008 13:11:04 Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Isn't the resolution Michael is suggesting is, "use the different
> > driver"?
> >
> > I have two resolutions. One being:
> > rmmod b44
> > rmmod ssb
> >
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Isn't the resolution Michael is suggesting is, "use the different driver"?
>
> I have two resolutions. One being:
> rmmod b44
> rmmod ssb
> modprobe bcm43xx
> modprobe b44
>
> The other being: Wait for 2.6.25
On Monday 25 February 2008 11:49:34 Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 11:38 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > [1] bcm43xx is unmaintained. Larry used to be the maintainer until
> > he dropped it a few months ago.
>
> Doesn't that mean that Alexey gets to be the maintainer, as he's the
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 11:38 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> [1] bcm43xx is unmaintained. Larry used to be the maintainer until
> he dropped it a few months ago.
Doesn't that mean that Alexey gets to be the maintainer, as he's the one
patching it ?
Xav
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Monday 25 February 2008 11:23:02 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > > Hi Michael,
> > >
> > > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > > > The ony way
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > > The ony way I see this was possible, you manually changed the
> > > > module
On Monday 25 February 2008 07:49:35 Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > > The ony way I see this was possible, you manually changed the
> > > > module loading order, so that the
On Monday 25 February 2008 07:49:35 Greg KH wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
The ony way I see this was possible, you manually changed the
module loading order, so that the b43xx module was
On Monday 25 February 2008 11:23:02 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
The ony way I see this was
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
The ony way I see this was possible, you manually changed the
module loading order, so that
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 11:38 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
[1] bcm43xx is unmaintained. Larry used to be the maintainer until
he dropped it a few months ago.
Doesn't that mean that Alexey gets to be the maintainer, as he's the one
patching it ?
Xav
--
To unsubscribe from this list:
On Monday 25 February 2008 11:49:34 Xavier Bestel wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 11:38 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
[1] bcm43xx is unmaintained. Larry used to be the maintainer until
he dropped it a few months ago.
Doesn't that mean that Alexey gets to be the maintainer, as he's the one
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't the resolution Michael is suggesting is, use the different driver?
I have two resolutions. One being:
rmmod b44
rmmod ssb
modprobe bcm43xx
modprobe b44
The other being: Wait for 2.6.25 and use the
On Monday 25 February 2008 13:11:04 Pekka Enberg wrote:
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't the resolution Michael is suggesting is, use the different
driver?
I have two resolutions. One being:
rmmod b44
rmmod ssb
modprobe bcm43xx
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
Neither of which seem like acceptable solutions for a 2.6.23 - 2.6.24
_regression_. Or maybe I am just too naive to believe Linus' statement
on not letting the kernel regress...
So, please sign-off the patch that we have, if you think it's right
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Pekka J Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
Neither of which seem like acceptable solutions for a 2.6.23 - 2.6.24
_regression_. Or maybe I am just too naive to believe Linus' statement
on not letting the kernel
Hi Greg,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Greg KH wrote:
> > Lets make this simple: it used to work before and now it doesn't.
> > Therefore it's a regression that must be addressed. Period.
>
> Isn't the resolution Michael is suggesting is, "use the different driver"?
Alexey said it didn't work but even
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > > The ony way I see this was possible, you manually changed the
> > > module loading order, so that the b43xx module was loaded prior
> > > to the ssb and b44 modules.
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
> > The ony way I see this was possible, you manually changed the
> > module loading order, so that the b43xx module was loaded prior
> > to the ssb and b44 modules. Right?
>
> Right. So "so I'm left with either no wifi or no ethenet" being
On Sunday 24 February 2008, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:32:50 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > > The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't
> > work
> > > anyway, and
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:32:50 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't
> work
> > anyway, and there is no chance fixing it). The problem is with enabling
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:32:50 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't work
> anyway, and there is no chance fixing it). The problem is with enabling the
> bcm43xx wifi driver and the b44 Ethernet driver. The ethernet driver then
>
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:32:50 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't work
anyway, and there is no chance fixing it). The problem is with enabling the
bcm43xx wifi driver and the b44 Ethernet driver. The ethernet driver then
wrongly
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:32:50 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't
work
anyway, and there is no chance fixing it). The problem is with enabling the
On Sunday 24 February 2008, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 5:29 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:32:50 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't
work
anyway, and there is no
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
The ony way I see this was possible, you manually changed the
module loading order, so that the b43xx module was loaded prior
to the ssb and b44 modules. Right?
Right. So so I'm left with either no wifi or no ethenet being wrong.
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:17AM +0200, Pekka J Enberg wrote:
Hi Michael,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Michael Buesch wrote:
The ony way I see this was possible, you manually changed the
module loading order, so that the b43xx module was loaded prior
to the ssb and b44 modules. Right?
Hi Greg,
On Sun, 24 Feb 2008, Greg KH wrote:
Lets make this simple: it used to work before and now it doesn't.
Therefore it's a regression that must be addressed. Period.
Isn't the resolution Michael is suggesting is, use the different driver?
Alexey said it didn't work but even if it
On Saturday 23 February 2008 22:32:46 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > The insults being? A few quotes, please.
> If you really want to know, the
> "Because the new driver works, if you just set it up right."
> for me was clearly a hint that I'm just an other imcompetent
> user, who can't even follow
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> > I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
> > the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've
> > ever seen
On Saturday 23 February 2008 17:44:33 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
> > > the past few months you are one of the worst
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
> > the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've
> > ever seen on lkml: you are ignoring
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
> the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've
> ever seen on lkml: you are ignoring regressions, you are frequently
> insulting our testers
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > If this is not a repgession, than I don't know what is. And if it is
> > > a regression, it should be fixed at least in the 2.6.24.y series, do
> > > you agree?
> >
> > No. Playing
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So does reverting commit 753f492093da7a40141bfe083073400f518f4c68
> > > > ("[B44]: port to native ssb support") fix the regression?
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Alexey Zaytsev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Pekka J Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > So does reverting commit 753f492093da7a40141bfe083073400f518f4c68
> > > ("[B44]: port to native ssb support") fix the
Hi Alexey,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > So does reverting commit 753f492093da7a40141bfe083073400f518f4c68
> > ("[B44]: port to native ssb support") fix the regression?
> >
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> Compiling it right now.
>
>
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Alexey Zaytsev
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't
> work
> > anyway, and there is no chance fixing it). The
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Alexey Zaytsev
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't work
> anyway, and there is no chance fixing it). The problem is with enabling the
> bcm43xx wifi driver and the b44 Ethernet driver. The ethernet
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Agreed. Alexey, did you identify a specific git commit that caused the
> > regression? Can we just revert that from 2.6.24? Michael, even if
> > _you're_ planning to
* Pekka Enberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Agreed. Alexey, did you identify a specific git commit that caused the
> regression? Can we just revert that from 2.6.24? Michael, even if
> _you're_ planning to remove bcm43xx we must not let it regress until
> it's gone.
btw., if the best answer
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
> the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've
> ever seen on lkml: you are ignoring regressions, you are frequently
>
* Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > If this is not a repgession, than I don't know what is. And if it is
> > a regression, it should be fixed at least in the 2.6.24.y series, do
> > you agree?
>
> No. Playing with kconfig SELECT is really _nothing_ for a -stable
> series. I am
* Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is not a repgession, than I don't know what is. And if it is
a regression, it should be fixed at least in the 2.6.24.y series, do
you agree?
No. Playing with kconfig SELECT is really _nothing_ for a -stable
series. I am _not_ going
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've
ever seen on lkml: you are ignoring regressions, you are frequently
insulting our
* Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. Alexey, did you identify a specific git commit that caused the
regression? Can we just revert that from 2.6.24? Michael, even if
_you're_ planning to remove bcm43xx we must not let it regress until
it's gone.
btw., if the best answer is: do
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Agreed. Alexey, did you identify a specific git commit that caused the
regression? Can we just revert that from 2.6.24? Michael, even if
_you're_ planning to remove bcm43xx we
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Alexey Zaytsev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't work
anyway, and there is no chance fixing it). The problem is with enabling the
bcm43xx wifi driver and the b44 Ethernet driver. The ethernet
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:32 PM, Alexey Zaytsev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is not with enabling both b43 and bcm43xx (will, whis won't
work
anyway, and there is no chance fixing it). The problem is with
Hi Alexey,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So does reverting commit 753f492093da7a40141bfe083073400f518f4c68
([B44]: port to native ssb support) fix the regression?
On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
Compiling it right now.
I'm sure it
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:57 PM, Pekka J Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Alexey,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So does reverting commit 753f492093da7a40141bfe083073400f518f4c68
([B44]: port to native ssb support) fix the regression?
Hi,
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Pekka Enberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So does reverting commit 753f492093da7a40141bfe083073400f518f4c68
([B44]: port to native ssb support) fix the regression?
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 2:17 PM, Alexey Zaytsev
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, the
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If this is not a repgession, than I don't know what is. And if it is
a regression, it should be fixed at least in the 2.6.24.y series, do
you agree?
No. Playing with kconfig
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've
ever seen on lkml: you are ignoring regressions, you are frequently
insulting our testers and
* Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've
ever seen on lkml: you are ignoring regressions,
On Saturday 23 February 2008 17:44:33 Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
the past few months you are one of the worst driver
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Saturday 23 February 2008 12:07:51 Ingo Molnar wrote:
I have to say, after having observed multiple incidents around b43 in
the past few months you are one of the worst driver maintainers i've
ever seen on lkml:
On Saturday 23 February 2008 22:32:46 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
The insults being? A few quotes, please.
If you really want to know, the
Because the new driver works, if you just set it up right.
for me was clearly a hint that I'm just an other imcompetent
user, who can't even follow the
On Friday 22 February 2008, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> Well, it looks like Michael is not the bcm43xx maintaner. I sent the
> patch to him,
> because it was his code that broke the driver, and I thought it would
> be easy for him to review my patch, as it touches his code.
See? I'm tired of this
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Greg KH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:38:34PM +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > > > > It
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:38:34PM +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > > > It is not my problem, if you refuse to use b43.
> > > > You also still refuse to
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 18:51:32 Gabriel C wrote:
> > > I'm not going to play these kconfig SELECT tricks anymore.
> >
> > Fix it different then.
>
> Please do so.
>
> > Yes it is but that is still not a valid reason to NACK
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > > It is not my problem, if you refuse to use b43.
> > > You also still refuse to tell me details about your card and _what_
> > > does not work. I do
On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > It is not my problem, if you refuse to use b43.
> > You also still refuse to tell me details about your card and _what_
> > does not work. I do own lots of different card and they
> > all work fine with b43. There's one exception,
[replying from my non-work account]
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 19:10:39 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> > Sorry, I don't get it. You are going to remove the (somehow)
> > working driver, while there are known problems with the
On Friday 22 February 2008 18:51:32 Gabriel C wrote:
> > I'm not going to play these kconfig SELECT tricks anymore.
>
> Fix it different then.
Please do so.
> Yes it is but that is still not a valid reason to NACK that patch , I'm sorry.
NACK means I (being the maintainer of the modified code)
Michael Buesch wrote:
> On Friday 22 February 2008 12:17:15 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
>> Hello.
>>
>> The bcm43xx driver won't work any more, if the b44 Ethernet
>> driver is enabled. This happens because the b44 driver
>> needlessly enables the b43_pci_bridge code, which claims
>> the same pci ids as
On Friday 22 February 2008 19:10:39 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
> Sorry, I don't get it. You are going to remove the (somehow)
> working driver, while there are known problems with the new
> one? Why?
Because the new driver works, if you just set it up right.
Until now every "breakage" was just a usage
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 12:17:15 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
Hello.
The bcm43xx driver won't work any more, if the b44 Ethernet
driver is enabled. This happens because the b44 driver
needlessly enables the b43_pci_bridge code, which claims
the same pci ids as the bcm43xx
On Friday 22 February 2008 12:17:15 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
>
> Hello.
>
> The bcm43xx driver won't work any more, if the b44 Ethernet
> driver is enabled. This happens because the b44 driver
> needlessly enables the b43_pci_bridge code, which claims
> the same pci ids as the bcm43xx driver. The
Hello.
The bcm43xx driver won't work any more, if the b44 Ethernet
driver is enabled. This happens because the b44 driver
needlessly enables the b43_pci_bridge code, which claims
the same pci ids as the bcm43xx driver. The b43_pci_bridge
code is needed for the b43{legacy} drivers, but for the
Hello.
The bcm43xx driver won't work any more, if the b44 Ethernet
driver is enabled. This happens because the b44 driver
needlessly enables the b43_pci_bridge code, which claims
the same pci ids as the bcm43xx driver. The b43_pci_bridge
code is needed for the b43{legacy} drivers, but for the
On Friday 22 February 2008 12:17:15 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
Hello.
The bcm43xx driver won't work any more, if the b44 Ethernet
driver is enabled. This happens because the b44 driver
needlessly enables the b43_pci_bridge code, which claims
the same pci ids as the bcm43xx driver. The
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 12:17:15 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
Hello.
The bcm43xx driver won't work any more, if the b44 Ethernet
driver is enabled. This happens because the b44 driver
needlessly enables the b43_pci_bridge code, which claims
the same pci ids as the bcm43xx
On Friday 22 February 2008 19:10:39 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
Sorry, I don't get it. You are going to remove the (somehow)
working driver, while there are known problems with the new
one? Why?
Because the new driver works, if you just set it up right.
Until now every breakage was just a usage
Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 12:17:15 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
Hello.
The bcm43xx driver won't work any more, if the b44 Ethernet
driver is enabled. This happens because the b44 driver
needlessly enables the b43_pci_bridge code, which claims
the same pci ids as the bcm43xx
On Friday 22 February 2008 18:51:32 Gabriel C wrote:
I'm not going to play these kconfig SELECT tricks anymore.
Fix it different then.
Please do so.
Yes it is but that is still not a valid reason to NACK that patch , I'm sorry.
NACK means I (being the maintainer of the modified code)
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
It is not my problem, if you refuse to use b43.
You also still refuse to tell me details about your card and _what_
does not work. I do own lots of
[replying from my non-work account]
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 19:10:39 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
Sorry, I don't get it. You are going to remove the (somehow)
working driver, while there are known problems with the new
On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
It is not my problem, if you refuse to use b43.
You also still refuse to tell me details about your card and _what_
does not work. I do own lots of different card and they
all work fine with b43. There's one exception, the 4311
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 06:56:14PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 18:51:32 Gabriel C wrote:
I'm not going to play these kconfig SELECT tricks anymore.
Fix it different then.
Please do so.
Yes it is but that is still not a valid reason to NACK that patch ,
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:38:34PM +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
It is not my problem, if you refuse to use b43.
You also still refuse to tell me
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 1:12 AM, Greg KH [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:38:34PM +0300, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Michael Buesch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Friday 22 February 2008 21:06:00 Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
It is not my
On Friday 22 February 2008, Alexey Zaytsev wrote:
Well, it looks like Michael is not the bcm43xx maintaner. I sent the
patch to him,
because it was his code that broke the driver, and I thought it would
be easy for him to review my patch, as it touches his code.
See? I'm tired of this how
86 matches
Mail list logo
