On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:27:16 -0800 John Ronciak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We don't of any problems reported against e100 that have not been > talked about in this thread (in old ARCH types). I think the eepro100 > driver should be removed from the config "just in case" but we are in > full support of the e100 driver and if somebody says that it's not > working on one of the different ARCHs we are willing to work with them > to get it fixed. The problem is that we don't have all these > different ARCH systems around to test against. > > Another thing is that removal of the driver (or disabling the config) > will hopefully force the issue in that people with these ARCHs will > use the e100 and if they have problems we can get them fixed in the > e100 driver. At this point nobody seems to be able to define a "real" > problem other than talking about it. Ok then, let's go ahead, but I vote for config exclusion as a first step, so if anybody will run into problems, will use old mature stuff until e100 get fixed. Due to rollback the removed driver - back and forth in killing/resurrecting stuff is not a good example to follow within the kernel. Generally speaking, e100 should replace eepro*, but I can see no reason for rush in doing that one-step. -- Sincerely, Vitaly - 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
