Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
8 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

Sven Luther
Hi Jurij, ...

Any idea why this patch was not applied to our kernel and forwarded upstream ?
It seems to fix the issue, but there where no news about this bug report since
November ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

Marco d'Itri
On Jan 11, Sven Luther <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Any idea why this patch was not applied to our kernel and forwarded upstream ?
Because it probably breaks other cards.
IIRC this driver is especially relevant for a !x86 architecture.

--
ciao,
Marco

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

Sven Luther
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:35:18PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 11, Sven Luther <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Any idea why this patch was not applied to our kernel and forwarded upstream ?
> Because it probably breaks other cards.
> IIRC this driver is especially relevant for a !x86 architecture.

So you think that these two cards :

- { 0x1282, 0x9100, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, DM910X },
- { 0x1282, 0x9102, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, DM910X },

are not supported by the dmfe driver on non-x86 ?

Or maybe i misunderstood you, or misunderstoof the patch, but it seems not
that it can affect any kind of pci card different than those two.

Friendly,

Sven Luther



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

Marco d'Itri
On Jan 11, Sven Luther <[hidden email]> wrote:

> So you think that these two cards :
I remember that some card(s) work with one driver but not the other, and
IIRC they have the same PCI ID.
There was some old hotplug bug about this.

--
ciao,
Marco

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

Sven Luther
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:46:08PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 11, Sven Luther <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > So you think that these two cards :
> I remember that some card(s) work with one driver but not the other, and
> IIRC they have the same PCI ID.
> There was some old hotplug bug about this.

Ah, well. ...

Not really much we can do about this, except fix the drivers. That said :

config DM9102
        tristate "Davicom DM910x/DM980x support"
        depends on NET_TULIP && PCI
        select CRC32
        ---help---
          This driver is for DM9102(A)/DM9132/DM9801 compatible PCI cards from
          Davicom (<http://www.davicom.com.tw/>).  If you have such a network
          (Ethernet) card, say Y.  Some information is contained in the file
          <file:Documentation/networking/dmfe.txt>.

          To compile this driver as a module, choose M here and read
          <file:Documentation/networking/net-modules.txt>.  The module will
          be called dmfe.

and :

obj-$(CONFIG_DM9102)            += dmfe.o

which means the dmfe driver is indeed the default for the DM9102. If some
cards don't work with the dmfe driver, then the dmfe driver is buggy and needs
to be fixed, don't you think ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

Marco d'Itri
On Jan 11, Sven Luther <[hidden email]> wrote:

> which means the dmfe driver is indeed the default for the DM9102. If some
> cards don't work with the dmfe driver, then the dmfe driver is buggy and needs
> to be fixed, don't you think ?
Sure, it's just that apparently the interested people are not able to do
it.

--
ciao,
Marco

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

Sven Luther
On Wed, Jan 11, 2006 at 02:55:28PM +0100, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Jan 11, Sven Luther <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > which means the dmfe driver is indeed the default for the DM9102. If some
> > cards don't work with the dmfe driver, then the dmfe driver is buggy and needs
> > to be fixed, don't you think ?
> Sure, it's just that apparently the interested people are not able to do
> it.

Well. let's apply this patch, and then we see if we get bug reports, and
examine those case by case, and try to fix them ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [hidden email]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Bug#334104: Why was this patch not applied ?

Marco d'Itri
On Jan 11, Sven Luther <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well. let's apply this patch, and then we see if we get bug reports, and
> examine those case by case, and try to fix them ?
I have no objections.

--
ciao,
Marco

signature.asc (196 bytes) Download Attachment