From: Brian Thompson <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:25:48 -0400 > > > David Miller wrote: > > From: Josip Rodin <joy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:49:11 +0100 > > > > > >> I'm just Cc:'ing this to the sparc kernel mailing list... > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 08:21:56PM -0500, Brian Thompson wrote: > >> > >>> I'd like to get some feedback as to whether anyone is actually using > >>> the dmfe Davicom kernel module on sparc for 10/100 ethernet. > >>> > >>> To the best of my knowledge, Sun never manufactured any > >>> expansion cards that utilize the Davicom chip and the UltraAX-i2 > >>> motherboard (Netra X1 and Sunfire V100) is the only Sun > >>> motherboard that uses the chip. That particular motherboard > >>> uses the tulip kernel module though, not the dmfe kernel module. > >>> > >>> Since the PCI ID of the UltraAX-i2's onboard ethernet > >>> (1282:9102 - Davicom 9102) matches up with both the dmfe > >>> module and the tulip module, both modules attempt to load and > >>> end up causing the network interface to malfunction. > >>> > >>> My question is - is anyone actually using the dmfe kernel module > >>> on sparc and/or would it be ok to set the default to not build the > >>> dmfe kernel module on sparc? > >>> > >>> I presume that the only scenario where anyone would actually be > >>> using the dmfe kernel module on sparc would be if they've installed > >>> a PCI NIC originally intended for x86 machines into their sparc > >>> machine. > >>> > > > > Better would be to simply remove the conflicting device IDs > > from the dmfe driver. > > > > > Something like the following in dmfe.c? I can test it if it makes sense to do so. I mean unconditionally, if all of the IDs are covered by tulip we should delete the dmfe driver. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
