Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Brandeburg, Jesse wrote: Roberto Nibali wrote: Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were using IPMI add on card. the IPMI card share intel 100Mhz nic onboard. you need to use eepro100 instead of e100 otherwise the e100 will shutdown OOB (out of Band) connection for IPMI when shut down the OS. I find it hard to believe that something as common as IPMI in conjunction with the IPMI technology wasn't tested in Intel's lab. From my experience with Intel Server boards, onboard IPMI (all offered versions) and e100/e1000 NICs, I've never ever experienced any problems operating the BMC over the NIC. Also, I don't quite understand you point about the "IPMI card sharing the 100Mbit/s NIC" onboard? What exactly is shared? It's a legit problem, but only with this *one* system. Of course the eepro100 driver is not taking a lot of maintenance either, removing it is not critical as long as there is a legitimate need to support old hardware. -- bill davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Brandeburg, Jesse wrote: Roberto Nibali wrote: Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were using IPMI add on card. the IPMI card share intel 100Mhz nic onboard. you need to use eepro100 instead of e100 otherwise the e100 will shutdown OOB (out of Band) connection for IPMI when shut down the OS. I find it hard to believe that something as common as IPMI in conjunction with the IPMI technology wasn't tested in Intel's lab. From my experience with Intel Server boards, onboard IPMI (all offered versions) and e100/e1000 NICs, I've never ever experienced any problems operating the BMC over the NIC. Also, I don't quite understand you point about the IPMI card sharing the 100Mbit/s NIC onboard? What exactly is shared? It's a legit problem, but only with this *one* system. Of course the eepro100 driver is not taking a lot of maintenance either, removing it is not critical as long as there is a legitimate need to support old hardware. -- bill davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] CTO TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with small computers since 1979 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Roberto Nibali wrote: >>> Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that >>> we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails >>> but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for >>> everybody. >>> >>> Needs to happen, though... >> >> It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were using IPMI >> add on card. the IPMI card share intel 100Mhz nic onboard. you need >> to use eepro100 instead of e100 otherwise the e100 will shutdown OOB >> (out of Band) connection for IPMI when shut down the OS. > > I find it hard to believe that something as common as IPMI in > conjunction with the IPMI technology wasn't tested in Intel's lab. > From my experience with Intel Server boards, onboard IPMI (all offered > versions) and e100/e1000 NICs, I've never ever experienced any > problems operating the BMC over the NIC. Also, I don't quite > understand you point about the "IPMI card sharing the 100Mbit/s NIC" > onboard? What exactly is shared? It's a legit problem, but only with this *one* system. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were using IPMI add on card. the IPMI card share intel 100Mhz nic onboard. you need to use eepro100 instead of e100 otherwise the e100 will shutdown OOB (out of Band) connection for IPMI when shut down the OS. I find it hard to believe that something as common as IPMI in conjunction with the IPMI technology wasn't tested in Intel's lab. From my experience with Intel Server boards, onboard IPMI (all offered versions) and e100/e1000 NICs, I've never ever experienced any problems operating the BMC over the NIC. Also, I don't quite understand you point about the "IPMI card sharing the 100Mbit/s NIC" onboard? What exactly is shared? Best regards, Roberto Nibali, ratz -- echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq' | dc - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were using IPMI add on card. the IPMI card share intel 100Mhz nic onboard. you need to use eepro100 instead of e100 otherwise the e100 will shutdown OOB (out of Band) connection for IPMI when shut down the OS. I find it hard to believe that something as common as IPMI in conjunction with the IPMI technology wasn't tested in Intel's lab. From my experience with Intel Server boards, onboard IPMI (all offered versions) and e100/e1000 NICs, I've never ever experienced any problems operating the BMC over the NIC. Also, I don't quite understand you point about the IPMI card sharing the 100Mbit/s NIC onboard? What exactly is shared? Best regards, Roberto Nibali, ratz -- echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln256%Pln256/snlbx]sb3135071790101768542287578439snlbxq' | dc - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
RE: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Roberto Nibali wrote: Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were using IPMI add on card. the IPMI card share intel 100Mhz nic onboard. you need to use eepro100 instead of e100 otherwise the e100 will shutdown OOB (out of Band) connection for IPMI when shut down the OS. I find it hard to believe that something as common as IPMI in conjunction with the IPMI technology wasn't tested in Intel's lab. From my experience with Intel Server boards, onboard IPMI (all offered versions) and e100/e1000 NICs, I've never ever experienced any problems operating the BMC over the NIC. Also, I don't quite understand you point about the IPMI card sharing the 100Mbit/s NIC onboard? What exactly is shared? It's a legit problem, but only with this *one* system. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
On 3/28/07, Jeff Garzik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Kok, Auke wrote: Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were using IPMI add on card. the IPMI card share intel 100Mhz nic onboard. you need to use eepro100 instead of e100 otherwise the e100 will shutdown OOB (out of Band) connection for IPMI when shut down the OS. YH - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Kok, Auke wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some IBM rackmount servers and eepro100 did, but since I'm no longer responsible for those machines I can't retest. Perhaps someone will be able to provide data points. IBM current offerings as of about three years ago, I had a few dozen of them at one time. We have provided a (test) driver which allows e100 to use IO to communicate with the device, which seems to have helped for one person. I think we need to work with those changes and see if it helps the other people resolve their e100 issues. Unfortunately it keeps slipping off to the low priority list for us. I suggest that we should push this code into -mm for people to test or something. It's fairly low risk as by default the patch won't enable IO and thus use the old method of writing to the adapter. Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some IBM rackmount servers and eepro100 did, but since I'm no longer responsible for those machines I can't retest. Perhaps someone will be able to provide data points. IBM current offerings as of about three years ago, I had a few dozen of them at one time. We have provided a (test) driver which allows e100 to use IO to communicate with the device, which seems to have helped for one person. I think we need to work with those changes and see if it helps the other people resolve their e100 issues. Unfortunately it keeps slipping off to the low priority list for us. I suggest that we should push this code into -mm for people to test or something. It's fairly low risk as by default the patch won't enable IO and thus use the old method of writing to the adapter. Auke - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some IBM rackmount servers and eepro100 did, but since I'm no longer responsible for those machines I can't retest. Perhaps someone will be able to provide data points. IBM current offerings as of about three years ago, I had a few dozen of them at one time. -- Bill Davidsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked." - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some IBM rackmount servers and eepro100 did, but since I'm no longer responsible for those machines I can't retest. Perhaps someone will be able to provide data points. IBM current offerings as of about three years ago, I had a few dozen of them at one time. -- Bill Davidsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] We have more to fear from the bungling of the incompetent than from the machinations of the wicked. - from Slashdot - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some IBM rackmount servers and eepro100 did, but since I'm no longer responsible for those machines I can't retest. Perhaps someone will be able to provide data points. IBM current offerings as of about three years ago, I had a few dozen of them at one time. We have provided a (test) driver which allows e100 to use IO to communicate with the device, which seems to have helped for one person. I think we need to work with those changes and see if it helps the other people resolve their e100 issues. Unfortunately it keeps slipping off to the low priority list for us. I suggest that we should push this code into -mm for people to test or something. It's fairly low risk as by default the patch won't enable IO and thus use the old method of writing to the adapter. Auke - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Kok, Auke wrote: Bill Davidsen wrote: Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED] This keeps coming around, but I haven't seen an answer to the questions raised by Eric Piel or Kiszka. I do know that e100 didn't work on some IBM rackmount servers and eepro100 did, but since I'm no longer responsible for those machines I can't retest. Perhaps someone will be able to provide data points. IBM current offerings as of about three years ago, I had a few dozen of them at one time. We have provided a (test) driver which allows e100 to use IO to communicate with the device, which seems to have helped for one person. I think we need to work with those changes and see if it helps the other people resolve their e100 issues. Unfortunately it keeps slipping off to the low priority list for us. I suggest that we should push this code into -mm for people to test or something. It's fairly low risk as by default the patch won't enable IO and thus use the old method of writing to the adapter. Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... Jeff - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
On 3/28/07, Jeff Garzik [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Kok, Auke wrote: Sounds sane to me. My overall opinion on eepro100 removal is that we're not there yet. Rare problem cases remain where e100 fails but eepro100 works, and it's older drivers so its low priority for everybody. Needs to happen, though... It seems that several Tyan Opteron base system that were using IPMI add on card. the IPMI card share intel 100Mhz nic onboard. you need to use eepro100 instead of e100 otherwise the e100 will shutdown OOB (out of Band) connection for IPMI when shut down the OS. YH - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
On 1/2/07, Eric Piel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the devices which are (supposedly) supported by eepro100 and not by e100? According to "modinfo eepro100" and "modinfo e100" those devices IDs are only matched by eepro100: +alias: pci:v8086d1035sv +alias: pci:v8086d1036sv +alias: pci:v8086d1037sv These are phoneline (RJ-11) adapters, I doubt it would work with e100 or eepro100 +alias: pci:v8086d1227sv 1227 doesn't exist as a pro/100 in our database, typo maybe? +alias: pci:v8086d5200sv doesn't exist in our database +alias: pci:v8086d5201sv This was the pro/100 intelligent server adapter with a pro/100 behind a 960. There aren't too many of these out there, and they usually require some special configuration (although they can work as a dumb nic, but why would you want a full length pro/100 card?) Are they matched by some joker rule that I haven't noticed in e100, or is support for them really going to disappear? I think support for these devices can disappear (as I don't think they will work anyway) but if someone complains we can take into account what eepro100 did to support it (if anything) and enable it in e100. Jesse (e100 maintainer) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Adrian Bunk wrote: > This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. > I'm sorry to disturb the schedule, but I'm not sure right now if this pending issue of the e100 was meanwhile solved or declared a non-issue: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/8/105 Auke, can you confirm that it makes sense to re-test? IIRC, our private thread ended without resolution after I discovered that the chip revision makes the difference for me. Looked like it is either handled incorrectly by e100 or screwed up on that board. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
Adrian Bunk wrote: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. I'm sorry to disturb the schedule, but I'm not sure right now if this pending issue of the e100 was meanwhile solved or declared a non-issue: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/9/8/105 Auke, can you confirm that it makes sense to re-test? IIRC, our private thread ended without resolution after I discovered that the chip revision makes the difference for me. Looked like it is either handled incorrectly by e100 or screwed up on that board. Jan - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
On 1/2/07, Eric Piel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the devices which are (supposedly) supported by eepro100 and not by e100? According to modinfo eepro100 and modinfo e100 those devices IDs are only matched by eepro100: +alias: pci:v8086d1035sv +alias: pci:v8086d1036sv +alias: pci:v8086d1037sv These are phoneline (RJ-11) adapters, I doubt it would work with e100 or eepro100 +alias: pci:v8086d1227sv 1227 doesn't exist as a pro/100 in our database, typo maybe? +alias: pci:v8086d5200sv doesn't exist in our database +alias: pci:v8086d5201sv This was the pro/100 intelligent server adapter with a pro/100 behind a 960. There aren't too many of these out there, and they usually require some special configuration (although they can work as a dumb nic, but why would you want a full length pro/100 card?) Are they matched by some joker rule that I haven't noticed in e100, or is support for them really going to disappear? I think support for these devices can disappear (as I don't think they will work anyway) but if someone complains we can take into account what eepro100 did to support it (if anything) and enable it in e100. Jesse (e100 maintainer) - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
02.01.2007 22:57, Adrian Bunk wrote/a écrit: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the devices which are (supposedly) supported by eepro100 and not by e100? According to "modinfo eepro100" and "modinfo e100" those devices IDs are only matched by eepro100: +alias: pci:v8086d1035sv +alias: pci:v8086d1036sv +alias: pci:v8086d1037sv +alias: pci:v8086d1227sv +alias: pci:v8086d5200sv +alias: pci:v8086d5201sv Are they matched by some joker rule that I haven't noticed in e100, or is support for them really going to disappear? See you, Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [2.6 patch] the scheduled eepro100 removal
02.01.2007 22:57, Adrian Bunk wrote/a écrit: This patch contains the scheduled removal of the eepro100 driver. Hi, I've been using e100 for years with no problem, however more by curiosity than necessity I'd like to know how will be handled the devices which are (supposedly) supported by eepro100 and not by e100? According to modinfo eepro100 and modinfo e100 those devices IDs are only matched by eepro100: +alias: pci:v8086d1035sv +alias: pci:v8086d1036sv +alias: pci:v8086d1037sv +alias: pci:v8086d1227sv +alias: pci:v8086d5200sv +alias: pci:v8086d5201sv Are they matched by some joker rule that I haven't noticed in e100, or is support for them really going to disappear? See you, Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
