From: Dean Matsen <hidden> Date: 2003-07-11 23:21:51
Tom Rini wrote:
On Wed, Jul 09, 2003 at 11:21:40PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
quoted
In message [off-list ref] you wrote:
quoted
I think the search should be made smarter (especially, keep going to
the next address until it has gone through ALL address w/o finding a
valid ID). The kernel could still panic if it can't find any PHY chip,
but not the first time it reads the floating line and can't find the
answer in its table. The odds of reading a valid PHY ID from the
floating line is phenominally low. I'd submit a proposed patch for
this, but it doesn't sound like anyone else thinks this is important
enough to warrant a change.
I agree that it makes little sense for th kernel to panic if it finds
an unsupported PHY id.
quoted
the automatic PHY search will work. Unless the pullup is required for
non-search applications (which I assert it isn't), then I think the code
should be fixed, not the hardware.
We changed this in our kernel tree some time ago. If no valid PHY is
found we simply do not enable the interface, but we do not panic any
more.
Which raises two fun questions:
1) Do you plan on ever trying to re-sync your 2.4 tree with the
community tree (which should become kernel.org before too long)?
2) Do you plan on trying to keep in sync with 2.6 now that it's coming
up on us?
--
Tom Rini
http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/
Somewhere in this discussion thread I saw that the 2.4 kernel is closed for
patches (I just joined this list, so I didn't know that).
Would it help if I came up with a 2.5 patch for fec.c? I made a few minor
changes that will make it behave friendlier for all [to whom it is not
already being totally friendly], and I see the 2.5 kernel could use some
of the same changes.
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Paul Mackerras <hidden> Date: 2003-07-12 01:01:22
Dean Matsen writes:
Somewhere in this discussion thread I saw that the 2.4 kernel is closed for
patches (I just joined this list, so I didn't know that).
Well, that's not strictly true, we will continue to fix things that
are broken, but I would prefer than any new development (e.g. support
for new boards or devices) happened in 2.5. It's a bit disappointing
that 8xx still doesn't compile in 2.5. I don't have any 8xx hardware
to test on so I have been relying on others to update it.
Would it help if I came up with a 2.5 patch for fec.c? I made a few minor
changes that will make it behave friendlier for all [to whom it is not
already being totally friendly], and I see the 2.5 kernel could use some
of the same changes.
From: Dean Matsen <hidden> Date: 2003-07-12 21:13:30
Paul Mackerras wrote:
Dean Matsen writes:
quoted
Somewhere in this discussion thread I saw that the 2.4 kernel is closed for
patches (I just joined this list, so I didn't know that).
Well, that's not strictly true, we will continue to fix things that
are broken, but I would prefer than any new development (e.g. support
for new boards or devices) happened in 2.5. It's a bit disappointing
that 8xx still doesn't compile in 2.5. I don't have any 8xx hardware
to test on so I have been relying on others to update it.
Ok, in that case I do have ONE thing that I know should be fixed, but
I haven't seen any response on it, so I am wondering if anyone noticed
it at all. See
http://lists.linuxppc.org/linuxppc-dev/200307/msg00085.html
This affects existing support. It's so simple that:
a) It's kind of annoying to 8xx people
b) probably everyone will figure it out
c) there is really no risk in fixing it.
quoted
Would it help if I came up with a 2.5 patch for fec.c? I made a few minor
changes that will make it behave friendlier for all [to whom it is not
already being totally friendly], and I see the 2.5 kernel could use some
of the same changes.
Excellent idea. :)
Paul.
I would love to see the kernel perform well for mpc8xx users right out
of the
box, so I am highly motivated to contibute. I'll focus on the 2.5 kernel
(I'm surprised to hear it doesn't compile).
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Dan Malek <hidden> Date: 2003-07-13 15:48:12
Paul Mackerras wrote:
> .... It's a bit disappointing
that 8xx still doesn't compile in 2.5. I don't have any 8xx hardware
to test on so I have been relying on others to update it.
Ok, OK....I'll work on it some more. I'm travelling for the next week or
so, but when I get back I'll push some updates and get it going.
-- Dan
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
From: Roland Dreier <hidden> Date: 2003-07-13 16:29:09
Paul> .... It's a bit disappointing that 8xx still doesn't compile
Paul> in 2.5. I don't have any 8xx hardware to test on so I have
Paul> been relying on others to update it.
Speaking of 2.5, since our custom boards are in production now, I have
an Ebony (440GP eval board) that is completely idle, and some free
hacking time. Is there any 4xx work that I could help with? Is
linuxppc-2.5 the right tree to use?
Best,
Roland
** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/
On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 02:13:30PM -0700, Dean Matsen wrote:
Paul Mackerras wrote:
quoted
Dean Matsen writes:
quoted
Somewhere in this discussion thread I saw that the 2.4 kernel is closed
for
patches (I just joined this list, so I didn't know that).
Well, that's not strictly true, we will continue to fix things that
are broken, but I would prefer than any new development (e.g. support
for new boards or devices) happened in 2.5. It's a bit disappointing
that 8xx still doesn't compile in 2.5. I don't have any 8xx hardware
to test on so I have been relying on others to update it.