From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <38DC10F8.89ED2074@wanadoo.fr> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 02:06:00 +0100 From: Martin Costabel MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeff Garzik CC: linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org Subject: Re: Request for Tulip 2.2.x testing... References: <38DA7CF0.BC2E49D9@mandrakesoft.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linuxppc-dev@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: HI, I did some testing with both versions. They both work for me in the same way. The only difference I can see is one more line in /var/log/messages when I start the patched module. The unpatched one gives me kernel: tulip.c:v0.91g-ppc 7/16/99 becker@cesdis.gsfc.nasa.gov kernel: eth0: Digital DC21041 Tulip rev 33 at 0x400, 00:00:C5:47:6A:7C, IRQ 25. kernel: eth0: 21041 Media table, default media 0800 (Autosense). kernel: eth0: 21041 media #0, 10baseT. kernel: eth0: 21041 media #4, 10baseT-FD. The patched one gives an additional line kernel: eth0: 21143 10baseT link beat good. Otherwise I see no difference in performance between the two (nor with the de4x5 driver which I am normally using). Do you need more information? # cat /proc/version Linux version 2.2.15-pre15 (root@chezmoi) (gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release/franzo)) #22 Sat Mar 25 00:46:00 CET 2000 -- Martin Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Hi all! > > I was wondering if I could find anyone on here with a Tulip 21041 chip > that could do some simple testing under 2.2.15-pre15? > > Questions for which answers are sought: > > Does tulip.c work with your 21041 chip unmodified? > If yes, does the below patch break the tulip driver? > If no, does the below patch get your 21041 working again? ** Sent via the linuxppc-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/