On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:11:55PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:22:31PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> > >
> > > There was a new aic7xxx driver (version 5.2.3) that went into the
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 02:11:55PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:22:31PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
There was a new aic7xxx driver (version 5.2.3) that went into the 2.4.1ac
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:22:31PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> >
> > There was a new aic7xxx driver (version 5.2.3) that went into the 2.4.1ac
> > kernel series around 2.4.1-ac7. I would be curious to know if it
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
>
> There was a new aic7xxx driver (version 5.2.3) that went into the 2.4.1ac
> kernel series around 2.4.1-ac7. I would be curious to know if it worked on
> your machine properly.
Ok. Will try.
Are there any changes that
Ville Herva wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 06:16:01PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> > On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:53:55AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> > > Ville Herva wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
> > > > still a
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 06:16:01PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:53:55AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> > Ville Herva wrote:
> > >
> > > It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
> > > still a no-go with 7892. The boot halts and
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 06:16:01PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:53:55AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
Ville Herva wrote:
It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
still a no-go with 7892. The boot halts and it just
Ville Herva wrote:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 06:16:01PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:53:55AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
Ville Herva wrote:
It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
still a no-go with 7892. The
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
There was a new aic7xxx driver (version 5.2.3) that went into the 2.4.1ac
kernel series around 2.4.1-ac7. I would be curious to know if it worked on
your machine properly.
Ok. Will try.
Are there any changes that could
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 01:22:31PM +0200, you [Ville Herva] claimed:
On Thu, Feb 15, 2001 at 06:08:12AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
There was a new aic7xxx driver (version 5.2.3) that went into the 2.4.1ac
kernel series around 2.4.1-ac7. I would be curious to know if it worked on
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:53:55AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
> Ville Herva wrote:
> >
> > It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
> > still a no-go with 7892. The boot halts and it just prints this once a
> > second:
> >
> > (SCSI0:0:3:1) Synchronous at 160
Ville Herva wrote:
>
> It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
> still a no-go with 7892. The boot halts and it just prints this once a
> second:
>
> (SCSI0:0:3:1) Synchronous at 160 Mbyte/sec offset 31
> (SCSI0:0:3:1) CRC error during data in phase
> (SCSI0:0:3:1)
It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
still a no-go with 7892. The boot halts and it just prints this once a
second:
(SCSI0:0:3:1) Synchronous at 160 Mbyte/sec offset 31
(SCSI0:0:3:1) CRC error during data in phase
(SCSI0:0:3:1) CRC error in intermediate CRC
It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
still a no-go with 7892. The boot halts and it just prints this once a
second:
(SCSI0:0:3:1) Synchronous at 160 Mbyte/sec offset 31
(SCSI0:0:3:1) CRC error during data in phase
(SCSI0:0:3:1) CRC error in intermediate CRC
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 07:53:55AM -0500, you [Doug Ledford] claimed:
Ville Herva wrote:
It looks like ac6 (which I believe includes the patch you posted) is
still a no-go with 7892. The boot halts and it just prints this once a
second:
(SCSI0:0:3:1) Synchronous at 160 Mbyte/sec
15 matches
Mail list logo