From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fed1rmmtao07.cox.net (fed1rmmtao07.cox.net [68.230.241.32]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADEE62BDD3 for ; Tue, 21 Sep 2004 04:17:56 +1000 (EST) Date: Mon, 20 Sep 2004 11:17:47 -0700 From: Tom Rini To: "Robert P. J. Day" Message-ID: <20040920181747.GN27914@smtp.west.cox.net> References: <20040917100643.53011.qmail@web15608.mail.cnb.yahoo.com> <414AB4A7.2000807@intracom.gr> <20040920174914.GM27914@smtp.west.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Cc: Linuxppc-dev mailing list Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.x on 8xx status List-Id: "Linux on PowerPC \(Including Embedded\) Developers Mail List" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, Sep 20, 2004 at 02:02:43PM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Tom Rini wrote: > > >Note that the old SCC enet driver, in linuxppc-2.5 at least is 'OK'. > >Not that it couldn't do with a cleanup and netdev person audit, but it's > >functional enough for me and my rpxlite to mount a root fs. > > sorry to jump into this conversation late -- which "2.6.x" source tree > is being used here? As I said, linuxppc-2.5 is where the working driver is right now. > for quite some time, i've just used the linuxppx-2.5 tree at > ppc.bkbits.net. but when someone refers to a 2.6.x tree, which one > specifically is this? just the latest BK update from www.kernel.org? > or is this a PPC-specific tree? The only trees that matter here are linuxppc-2.5 (on ppc.bkbits.net) and linux-2.6 (on linux.bkbits.net). Everthing else "2.6.x" is a snapshot of one form or another of the linux-2.6 tree. -- Tom Rini http://gate.crashing.org/~trini/