Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-19 Thread Adam Kropelin
Auke Kok wrote: Adam Kropelin wrote: I am experiencing the no-link issue on a 82572EI single port copper PCI-E card. I've only tried 2.6.20-rc5, so I cannot tell if this is a regression or not yet. Will test older kernel soon. Can provide details/logs if you want 'em. we've already

Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-19 Thread Auke Kok
Adam Kropelin wrote: Auke Kok wrote: Adam Kropelin wrote: I am experiencing the no-link issue on a 82572EI single port copper PCI-E card. I've only tried 2.6.20-rc5, so I cannot tell if this is a regression or not yet. Will test older kernel soon. Can provide details/logs if you want 'em.

Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-19 Thread Adam Kropelin
Auke Kok wrote: Adam Kropelin wrote: I haven't been able to test rc5-mm yet because it won't boot on this box. Applying git-e1000 directly to -rc4 or -rc5 results in a number of rejects that I'm not sure how to fix. Some are obvious, but the others I'm unsure of. that won't work. You either

Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-19 Thread Auke Kok
Adam Kropelin wrote: Auke Kok wrote: Adam Kropelin wrote: I haven't been able to test rc5-mm yet because it won't boot on this box. Applying git-e1000 directly to -rc4 or -rc5 results in a number of rejects that I'm not sure how to fix. Some are obvious, but the others I'm unsure of. that

Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-17 Thread Adam Kropelin
Allen Parker wrote: Allen Parker wrote: From what I've been able to gather, other Intel Pro/1000 chipsets work fine in 2.6.20-rc5. If the e1000 guys need any assistance testing, I'll be more than happy to volunteer myself as a guinea pig for patches. I wasn't aware that I was supposed

Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-17 Thread Auke Kok
Adam Kropelin wrote: Allen Parker wrote: Allen Parker wrote: From what I've been able to gather, other Intel Pro/1000 chipsets work fine in 2.6.20-rc5. If the e1000 guys need any assistance testing, I'll be more than happy to volunteer myself as a guinea pig for patches. I wasn't aware that

Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-16 Thread Allen Parker
Allen Parker wrote: I have a PCI-E pro/1000 MT Quad Port adapter, which works quite well under 2.6.19.2 but fails to see link under 2.6.20-rc5. Earlier today I reported this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but thought I should get the word out in case someone else is testing this kernel on this nic

Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-16 Thread Auke Kok
Allen Parker wrote: Allen Parker wrote: I have a PCI-E pro/1000 MT Quad Port adapter, which works quite well under 2.6.19.2 but fails to see link under 2.6.20-rc5. Earlier today I reported this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but thought I should get the word out in case someone else is testing this

Re: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-16 Thread Jesse Brandeburg
On 1/16/07, Allen Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Allen Parker wrote: I have a PCI-E pro/1000 MT Quad Port adapter, which works quite well under 2.6.19.2 but fails to see link under 2.6.20-rc5. Earlier today I reported this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but thought I should get the word out in case

RE: intel 82571EB gigabit fails to see link on 2.6.20-rc5 in-tree e1000 driver (regression)

2007-01-16 Thread Brandeburg, Jesse
added Linux-pci Jesse Brandeburg wrote: On 1/16/07, Allen Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Allen Parker wrote: I have a PCI-E pro/1000 MT Quad Port adapter, which works quite well under 2.6.19.2 but fails to see link under 2.6.20-rc5. Earlier today I reported this to [EMAIL PROTECTED], but