From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Nz88W-0004gA-Gw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:44:08 -0400 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=39247 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nz88V-0004fc-8e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:44:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nz88T-0008QT-Jw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:44:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:6570) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nz88T-0008QB-Bs for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:44:05 -0400 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 15:40:20 +0300 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20100406124020.GA19739@redhat.com> References: <1270554249-24861-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1270554249-24861-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de> Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: eepro100: New patches List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stefan Weil Cc: QEMU Developers On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 01:44:00PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote: > These patches fix two regressions (1, 9) which made eepro100 rather useless, > use a simple method to handle the different device variants (2), > add a new device variant (4) and fix or clean some smaller issues. > > [PATCH 1/9] eepro100: Don't allow writing SCBStatus > [PATCH 2/9] eepro100: Simplify status handling > [PATCH 3/9] eepro100: Simplified device instantiation > [PATCH 4/9] eepro100: Add new device variant i82801 > [PATCH 5/9] eepro100: Set configuration bit for standard TCB > [PATCH 6/9] eepro100: Support compilation without EEPROM > [PATCH 7/9] eepro100: Set power management capability using pci_reserve_capability > [PATCH 8/9] eepro100: Fix mapping of flash memory > [PATCH 9/9] eepro100: Fix PCI interrupt pin configuration regression > > Regards, > Stefan I've applied these on my tree with some minor tweaks. Could you please let me know whether the result looks sane to you? Thanks! -- MST