Jay Cliburn wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
As a driver maintainer, you need to patch sets, and submit them in a
timely fashion to me. Note I said patch set, not patch, in following
with Rule #3 from Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Also make sure to
review http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
Jeff Garzik wrote:
As a driver maintainer, you need to patch sets, and submit them in a
timely fashion to me. Note I said patch set, not patch, in following
with Rule #3 from Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Also make sure to
review http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
Understood. Both
Jay Cliburn wrote:
Jeff, shall I add this to the larger patch I'm working on for submittal
later this weekend, or do you just add it directly to netdev? (I prefer
to do the former if it's okay with you.)
As a driver maintainer, you need to patch sets, and submit them in a
timely fashion to
Luca Tettamanti wrote:
[snip]
Anyway...
Unconditionally enable MSI in atl1 driver. Also remove some useless
#ifdef since pci_{en,dis}able_msi() are no-op when MSI support is not
configured in.
Signed-off-by: Luca Tettamanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Acked-by: Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I
Luca Tettamanti wrote:
[snip]
Anyway...
Unconditionally enable MSI in atl1 driver. Also remove some useless
#ifdef since pci_{en,dis}able_msi() are no-op when MSI support is not
configured in.
Signed-off-by: Luca Tettamanti [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Acked-by: Jay Cliburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I tested
Jay Cliburn wrote:
Jeff, shall I add this to the larger patch I'm working on for submittal
later this weekend, or do you just add it directly to netdev? (I prefer
to do the former if it's okay with you.)
As a driver maintainer, you need to patch sets, and submit them in a
timely fashion to
Jeff Garzik wrote:
As a driver maintainer, you need to patch sets, and submit them in a
timely fashion to me. Note I said patch set, not patch, in following
with Rule #3 from Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Also make sure to
review http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
Understood. Both
Jay Cliburn wrote:
Jeff Garzik wrote:
As a driver maintainer, you need to patch sets, and submit them in a
timely fashion to me. Note I said patch set, not patch, in following
with Rule #3 from Documentation/SubmittingPatches. Also make sure to
review http://linux.yyz.us/patch-format.html
Randy Dunlap wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:33:29 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
IMHO the MSI disabling should be removed from drivers and be done
in the PCI core.
That is the consensus opinion.
Currently drivers implement the
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:33:29 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
IMHO the MSI disabling should be removed from drivers and be done
in the PCI core.
That is the consensus opinion.
Currently drivers implement the MSI tests because the
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:33:29 -0500
Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > IMHO the MSI disabling should be removed from drivers and be done
> > in the PCI core.
>
> That is the consensus opinion.
>
> Currently drivers implement the MSI tests because the core PCI
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
IMHO the MSI disabling should be removed from drivers and be done
in the PCI core.
That is the consensus opinion.
Currently drivers implement the MSI tests because the core PCI code
hasn't been up to snuff. I (and others) have been discouraging that,
but when a
Il Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:25:22AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger ha scritto:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:00:04 +0100
> Luca Tettamanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Il Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:33:39PM -0600, Jay Cliburn ha scritto:
> > > Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > > >On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:00:04 +0100
Luca Tettamanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Il Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:33:39PM -0600, Jay Cliburn ha scritto:
> > Randy Dunlap wrote:
> > >On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > >>+ value = ioread16(hw->hw_addr +
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:00:04 +0100
Luca Tettamanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Il Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:33:39PM -0600, Jay Cliburn ha scritto:
Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote:
[snip]
+ value = ioread16(hw-hw_addr + REG_PCIE_CAP_LIST);
+
Il Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 11:25:22AM -0800, Stephen Hemminger ha scritto:
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:00:04 +0100
Luca Tettamanti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Il Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:33:39PM -0600, Jay Cliburn ha scritto:
Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
IMHO the MSI disabling should be removed from drivers and be done
in the PCI core.
That is the consensus opinion.
Currently drivers implement the MSI tests because the core PCI code
hasn't been up to snuff. I (and others) have been discouraging that,
but when a
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:33:29 -0500
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
IMHO the MSI disabling should be removed from drivers and be done
in the PCI core.
That is the consensus opinion.
Currently drivers implement the MSI tests because the core PCI code
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:33:29 -0500
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
IMHO the MSI disabling should be removed from drivers and be done
in the PCI core.
That is the consensus opinion.
Currently drivers implement the MSI tests because the
Randy Dunlap wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007 16:33:29 -0500
Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Stephen Hemminger wrote:
IMHO the MSI disabling should be removed from drivers and be done
in the PCI core.
That is the consensus opinion.
Currently drivers implement the
Il Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:33:39PM -0600, Jay Cliburn ha scritto:
> Randy Dunlap wrote:
> >On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote:
> [snip]
>
> >>+ value = ioread16(hw->hw_addr + REG_PCIE_CAP_LIST);
> >>+ return ((value & 0xFF00) == 0x6C00) ? 0 : 1;
> >
> >Are there defines or
Il Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 09:33:39PM -0600, Jay Cliburn ha scritto:
Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote:
[snip]
+ value = ioread16(hw-hw_addr + REG_PCIE_CAP_LIST);
+ return ((value 0xFF00) == 0x6C00) ? 0 : 1;
Are there defines or enums for these?
Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote:
[snip]
+ value = ioread16(hw->hw_addr + REG_PCIE_CAP_LIST);
+ return ((value & 0xFF00) == 0x6C00) ? 0 : 1;
Are there defines or enums for these?
Fewer magic numbers would be nice/helpful/readable.
[snip]
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote:
> This patch contains auxiliary C files for the Attansic L1 gigabit ethernet
> adapter driver.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> atl1_ethtool.c | 436
From: Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch contains auxiliary C files for the Attansic L1 gigabit ethernet
adapter driver.
Signed-off-by: Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
atl1_ethtool.c | 436
From: Jay Cliburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch contains auxiliary C files for the Attansic L1 gigabit ethernet
adapter driver.
Signed-off-by: Jay Cliburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
atl1_ethtool.c | 436
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote:
This patch contains auxiliary C files for the Attansic L1 gigabit ethernet
adapter driver.
Signed-off-by: Jay Cliburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
atl1_ethtool.c | 436
Randy Dunlap wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 15:07:37 -0600 Jay Cliburn wrote:
[snip]
+ value = ioread16(hw-hw_addr + REG_PCIE_CAP_LIST);
+ return ((value 0xFF00) == 0x6C00) ? 0 : 1;
Are there defines or enums for these?
Fewer magic numbers would be nice/helpful/readable.
[snip]
+
Jay Cliburn wrote:
+static u32 atl1_get_tx_csum(struct net_device *netdev)
+{
+ return (netdev->features & NETIF_F_HW_CSUM) != 0;
+}
+
+static int atl1_set_tx_csum(struct net_device *netdev, u32 data)
+{
+ if (data)
+ netdev->features |= NETIF_F_HW_CSUM;
+ else
+
Jay Cliburn wrote:
+static u32 atl1_get_tx_csum(struct net_device *netdev)
+{
+ return (netdev-features NETIF_F_HW_CSUM) != 0;
+}
+
+static int atl1_set_tx_csum(struct net_device *netdev, u32 data)
+{
+ if (data)
+ netdev-features |= NETIF_F_HW_CSUM;
+ else
+
> +#define ATL1_STATS_LEN sizeof(atl1_gstrings_stats) / sizeof(struct
> atl1_stats)
Just use an opencoded ARRAY_SIZE().
> +void atl1_read_pci_cfg(struct atl1_hw *hw, u32 reg, u16 * value)
> +{
> +struct atl1_adapter *adapter = hw->back;
> +pci_read_config_word(adapter->pdev,
+#define ATL1_STATS_LEN sizeof(atl1_gstrings_stats) / sizeof(struct
atl1_stats)
Just use an opencoded ARRAY_SIZE().
+void atl1_read_pci_cfg(struct atl1_hw *hw, u32 reg, u16 * value)
+{
+struct atl1_adapter *adapter = hw-back;
+pci_read_config_word(adapter-pdev, reg,
From: Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch contains auxiliary C files for the Attansic L1 gigabit ethernet
adapter driver.
Signed-off-by: Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Chris Snook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
atl1_ethtool.c | 528
From: Jay Cliburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch contains auxiliary C files for the Attansic L1 gigabit ethernet
adapter driver.
Signed-off-by: Jay Cliburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Chris Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
atl1_ethtool.c | 528
From: Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
This patch contains auxiliary C files for the Attansic L1 gigabit ethernet
adapter driver.
Signed-off-by: Jay Cliburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
atl1_ethtool.c | 530 +++
atl1_hw.c | 840
From: Jay Cliburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch contains auxiliary C files for the Attansic L1 gigabit ethernet
adapter driver.
Signed-off-by: Jay Cliburn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
atl1_ethtool.c | 530 +++
atl1_hw.c | 840
36 matches
Mail list logo
