On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 12:57:57PM -0800, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote: > On Tue, 2011-03-01 at 12:17 -0800, John W. Linville wrote: > > Well, FWIW I offered to _merge_ a patch. :-) > > > > But, if I get some confirmation from a credible source at Intel that > > simply honoring the earlier version is sufficient I should have no > > particular problem squeezing-out such a patch. > > it will be case by case based on what EEPROM version was in the device. > I am not sure it is a good idea to relax the EEPROM version check in > general. Agree? Well, no, I don't agree. If Intel is releasing hardware with that EEPROM version into the wild and is happy to support it on Windows, I am at a loss to understand why it can't be supported under Linux. It would be one thing if these were just a few engineering samples that escaped to ebay through some nefarious means. But the reports from the user suggest that these came through Dell and are being supported by the Windows driver. That suggests that there is enough correct information in the EEPROM to ensure the device is functioning properly...? John -- John W. Linville The truth will set you free, but first it will linville@xxxxxxxxxx make you miserable. -- James A. Garfield -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
