Daniela,
Great to hear from you again my dear! ;-)
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:25:43AM +0100, Daniela Engert wrote:
>
> > >They're about the same - only Alan didn't like the PCI speed measurement
> > >code that's new in the 4.x series, so I added
Daniela,
Great to hear from you again my dear! ;-)
On Fri, 9 Mar 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:25:43AM +0100, Daniela Engert wrote:
They're about the same - only Alan didn't like the PCI speed measurement
code that's new in the 4.x series, so I added all the
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:10:56AM -0700, Harold Oga wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:54:48PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>>3.21 has these fixes in it. It's series 3 because it doesn't include the
>>PCI speed measurement feature.
>Hi,
> Hmm, ok, I'll have to go back and try it again, because
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:54:48PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:35:42AM -0700, Harold Oga wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:17:06AM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>> >On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:23:49PM +, John Heil wrote:
>> >Make sure you use the latest
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:54:48PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:35:42AM -0700, Harold Oga wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:17:06AM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:23:49PM +, John Heil wrote:
Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 06:10:56AM -0700, Harold Oga wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:54:48PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
3.21 has these fixes in it. It's series 3 because it doesn't include the
PCI speed measurement feature.
Hi,
Hmm, ok, I'll have to go back and try it again, because I
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:25:43AM +0100, Daniela Engert wrote:
> >They're about the same - only Alan didn't like the PCI speed measurement
> >code that's new in the 4.x series, so I added all the other changes to
> >the 3.20 driver, and 3.21 was born.
>
> I do understand Alan's objections
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:51:07 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>They're about the same - only Alan didn't like the PCI speed measurement
>code that's new in the 4.x series, so I added all the other changes to
>the 3.20 driver, and 3.21 was born.
I do understand Alan's objections against this speed
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:35:42AM -0700, Harold Oga wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:17:06AM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> >On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:23:49PM +, John Heil wrote:
> >Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx drivers. Most other versions of
> >my drivers have little bugs in
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:30:23AM -0800, Wayne Whitney wrote:
> In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
>
> > Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx drivers. Most other versions of
> > my drivers have little bugs in the 686b support. Harmless but somewhat
> > annoying.
>
> Does this mean
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:17:06AM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:23:49PM +, John Heil wrote:
>Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx drivers. Most other versions of
>my drivers have little bugs in the 686b support. Harmless but somewhat
>annoying.
Hi,
Hmm, last
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
> Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx drivers. Most other versions of
> my drivers have little bugs in the 686b support. Harmless but somewhat
> annoying.
Does this mean that the version 3.21 of your driver in the latest
2.4.2-acxx is newer than the
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:23:49PM +, John Heil wrote:
> > Also, the vt82c686 will work just fine with Linux, but will be limited
> > to UDMA33, because UDMA66 on this chip does reliably fail.
>
> Based on following the lkml threads on Via chipsets, it seems that
> the 686a at or above rev
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:23:49PM +, John Heil wrote:
Also, the vt82c686 will work just fine with Linux, but will be limited
to UDMA33, because UDMA66 on this chip does reliably fail.
Based on following the lkml threads on Via chipsets, it seems that
the 686a at or above rev 22,
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx drivers. Most other versions of
my drivers have little bugs in the 686b support. Harmless but somewhat
annoying.
Does this mean that the version 3.21 of your driver in the latest
2.4.2-acxx is newer than the
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:17:06AM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:23:49PM +, John Heil wrote:
Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx drivers. Most other versions of
my drivers have little bugs in the 686b support. Harmless but somewhat
annoying.
Hi,
Hmm, last I
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:30:23AM -0800, Wayne Whitney wrote:
In mailing-lists.linux-kernel, you wrote:
Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx drivers. Most other versions of
my drivers have little bugs in the 686b support. Harmless but somewhat
annoying.
Does this mean that the
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001 19:51:07 +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
They're about the same - only Alan didn't like the PCI speed measurement
code that's new in the 4.x series, so I added all the other changes to
the 3.20 driver, and 3.21 was born.
I do understand Alan's objections against this speed
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 11:35:42AM -0700, Harold Oga wrote:
On Thu, Mar 08, 2001 at 09:17:06AM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
On Wed, Mar 07, 2001 at 01:23:49PM +, John Heil wrote:
Make sure you use the latest 2.4.2-acxx drivers. Most other versions of
my drivers have little bugs in the
On Fri, Mar 09, 2001 at 08:25:43AM +0100, Daniela Engert wrote:
They're about the same - only Alan didn't like the PCI speed measurement
code that's new in the 4.x series, so I added all the other changes to
the 3.20 driver, and 3.21 was born.
I do understand Alan's objections against this
On Mar 07 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> Also, the vt82c686 will work just fine with Linux, but will be limited
> to UDMA33, because UDMA66 on this chip does reliably fail.
How do I know which one I have? Using the revision of the
chip?
lspci only shows that I have a
On Wed, 7 Mar 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 20:14:37 +0100
> From: Vojtech Pavlik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: George Garvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Linux 2.4.2ac12 (vt82c686 info)
>
> On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 a
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:05:46AM -0800, George Garvey wrote:
>
> > No, just the vt82c686. vt82c686a and vt82c686b are OK.
>
> So can the vt82c686 be replaced with one of these other chips? What
> action is available to owners of MBs with chips that don't work w/Linux?
It can be replaced if
On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 05:05:46AM -0800, George Garvey wrote:
No, just the vt82c686. vt82c686a and vt82c686b are OK.
So can the vt82c686 be replaced with one of these other chips? What
action is available to owners of MBs with chips that don't work w/Linux?
It can be replaced if you can
On Mar 07 2001, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
Also, the vt82c686 will work just fine with Linux, but will be limited
to UDMA33, because UDMA66 on this chip does reliably fail.
How do I know which one I have? Using the revision of the
chip?
lspci only shows that I have a
> No, just the vt82c686. vt82c686a and vt82c686b are OK.
So can the vt82c686 be replaced with one of these other chips? What
action is available to owners of MBs with chips that don't work w/Linux?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a
No, just the vt82c686. vt82c686a and vt82c686b are OK.
So can the vt82c686 be replaced with one of these other chips? What
action is available to owners of MBs with chips that don't work w/Linux?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message
27 matches
Mail list logo
