On Sat, Nov 12, 2005 at 10:15:23PM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:43:54AM -0800, Don Fry wrote: > > This patch contains code from Thomas Bogendoerfer which I have modified > > somewhat. It works fine for me in my testing, but I would like > > additional exposure to this code before submitting to mainline. > > It should fix bugzilla bug #4219 as well. > > Is it necessary to maintain special cases for the single-PHY > configurations? What would be the effect of folding the single-PHY > situation into the multi-PHY handling code?
well, it was just my choice of using the so far working solution for single phys, which is the common board setup. The single phy solution uses the hardware capabilities of the chip, so it saves a few cyles... It's probably just a matter of switching to software based phy polling, fix bugs and be done with it. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessary a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
