Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Andrew was concerned about this when the driver was in -mm.
He asked for a patch that would set E1000E to same value as E1000
and I supplied that. Auke acked it IIRC. Other people vetoed it. :(
Yeah, I've been discussing with
Jeff Garzik wrote:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Andrew was concerned about this when the driver was in -mm.
He asked for a patch that would set E1000E to same value as E1000
and I supplied that. Auke acked it IIRC. Other people vetoed it. :(
Yeah, I've
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:51:04PM +1100, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Randy Dunlap wrote:
Andrew was concerned about this when the driver was in -mm.
He asked for a patch that would set E1000E to same value as E1000
and I supplied that. Auke acked it IIRC. Other
Adrian Bunk wrote:
Jeff, Auke, would something like this be acceptable? It makes it very
obvious in the driver table which entries are for the PCIE versions that
would be handled by the E1000E driver if it is enabled..
I don't like it:
We should aim at having exactly one driver for one
Frans Pop wrote:
There is one thing I don't understand, but that may well be just me...
From Linus' original patch:
+++ b/drivers/net/e1000/e1000_main.c
+ INTEL_E1000_ETHERNET_DEVICE(0x108C),
So, apparently support for 8086:108c was removed from the e1000
driver.
When it was
