From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from de01egw02.freescale.net (de01egw02.freescale.net [192.88.165.103]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "de01egw02.freescale.net", Issuer "Thawte Premium Server CA" (verified OK)) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7D045DE0F6 for ; Thu, 1 May 2008 05:23:36 +1000 (EST) Received: from de01smr01.freescale.net (de01smr01.freescale.net [10.208.0.31]) by de01egw02.freescale.net (8.12.11/de01egw02) with ESMTP id m3UJNUOc004744 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:23:31 -0700 (MST) Received: from ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net (ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net [10.82.19.112]) by de01smr01.freescale.net (8.13.1/8.13.0) with ESMTP id m3UJNUor019587 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:23:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:23:29 -0500 From: Scott Wood To: Becky Bruce Subject: Re: drivers/net/fec_8xx config problem Message-ID: <20080430192329.GA9150@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> References: <6E2EBEAF-DF1E-4439-91EF-B15EE39CAF61@freescale.com> <20080430192030.GA9084@ld0162-tx32.am.freescale.net> <151BA0B1-A188-41C7-B2DB-E8D63D15C218@freescale.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <151BA0B1-A188-41C7-B2DB-E8D63D15C218@freescale.com> Cc: "linuxppc-dev@ozlabs.org list" , jengelh@linux01.gwdg.de List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:24:19PM -0500, Becky Bruce wrote: > > On Apr 30, 2008, at 2:20 PM, Scott Wood wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 02:19:21PM -0500, Becky Bruce wrote: > >>I just noticed that the fec_8xx driver is not currently reachable via > >>menuconfig because it depends on 8XX instead of 8xx. > >[snip] > >>Since nobody has noticed this problem, I'm wondering if this driver > >>is still in (infrequent) use, or if it's been superseded and should > >>be removed, or if I'm just completely missing something with respect > >>to the use of "8XX" instead of "8xx". > > > >It's been superseded by drivers/net/fs_enet. > > Is there any reason we haven't removed it? To keep arch/ppc/8xx_io company? :-) > If not, I can push a patch to yank it. I have no objection. -Scott