Tom Rini wrote: >On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:21:40PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote: > > > >>In message <3F0C8112.5060001 at earthlink.net> you wrote: >> >> >>>I think the search should be made smarter (especially, keep going to >>>the next address until it has gone through ALL address w/o finding a >>>valid ID). The kernel could still panic if it can't find any PHY chip, >>>but not the first time it reads the floating line and can't find the >>>answer in its table. The odds of reading a valid PHY ID from the >>>floating line is phenominally low. I'd submit a proposed patch for >>>this, but it doesn't sound like anyone else thinks this is important >>>enough to warrant a change. >>> >>> >>I agree that it makes little sense for th kernel to panic if it finds >>an unsupported PHY id. >> >> >> >>>the automatic PHY search will work. Unless the pullup is required for >>>non-search applications (which I assert it isn't), then I think the code >>>should be fixed, not the hardware. >>> >>> >>We changed this in our kernel tree some time ago. If no valid PHY is >>found we simply do not enable the interface, but we do not panic any >>more. >> >> > >Which raises two fun questions: >1) Do you plan on ever trying to re-sync your 2.4 tree with the >community tree (which should become kernel.org before too long)? >2) Do you plan on trying to keep in sync with 2.6 now that it's coming >up on us? > >-- >Tom Rini >http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/ > > > > > Somewhere in this discussion thread I saw that the 2.4 kernel is closed for patches (I just joined this list, so I didn't know that).
Would it help if I came up with a 2.5 patch for fec.c? I made a few minor changes that will make it behave friendlier for all [to whom it is not already being totally friendly], and I see the 2.5 kernel could use some of the same changes. ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
