here's an updated diff.
the main changes are:
1. disable the phy code.
letting eephy attach seems to break autonegotiation.
it also looks like several generations of the marvell switches don't
supply a proper model id for the builtin phy, so the linux driver
fakes one and has extra code in
Hi David,
I found your email solely from searching the archives to see if there is
support for a new board I'm interested in from FriendlyElec, their recently
released NanoPi R5S:
https://www.cnx-software.com/2022/05/30/buy-nanopi-r5s-rockchip-rk3568-mini-router-sbc/
I found your email because
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 09:09:35AM +0200, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 08:44:43AM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
> > When compared to manifest FileAndHash, the RSC code doesn't limit
> > the size of the FileNameAndHash list. Should we do this for
> > consistency?
> >
> > The
On Wed, Jun 01, 2022 at 08:44:43AM +0200, Theo Buehler wrote:
> When compared to manifest FileAndHash, the RSC code doesn't limit the
> size of the FileNameAndHash list. Should we do this for consistency?
>
> The situation is of course not quite the same since we're in -f mode.
> However, we do
When compared to manifest FileAndHash, the RSC code doesn't limit the
size of the FileNameAndHash list. Should we do this for consistency?
The situation is of course not quite the same since we're in -f mode.
However, we do impose limits on the sizes of other resources, so it
looks like a missing
