From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758062AbZCAVYe (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:24:34 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754785AbZCAVYQ (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:24:16 -0500 Received: from rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de ([129.143.116.10]:34505 "EHLO rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754360AbZCAVYP (ORCPT ); Sun, 1 Mar 2009 16:24:15 -0500 Date: Sun, 1 Mar 2009 22:24:12 +0100 From: Andreas Mohr To: Jeff Kirsher Cc: andi@lisas.de, Andrew Morton , David Miller , torvalds@linux-foundation.org, bunk@kernel.org, auke-jan.h.kok@intel.com, e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.29 e100.c non-MII support status? (Re: [GIT]: Networking) Message-ID: <20090301212412.GA13210@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> Reply-To: andi@lisas.de References: <20081228.000118.121541932.davem@davemloft.net> <20081229102515.GA17171@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20081229091728.d869f1c1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <9929d2390812291515y623d6a51yed1bef021ab6847e@mail.gmail.com> <20081230120756.GA5393@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <20090228203757.GA18850@rhlx01.hs-esslingen.de> <9929d2390903010257p7c6fb367ga974767605033bc9@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9929d2390903010257p7c6fb367ga974767605033bc9@mail.gmail.com> X-Priority: none User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, On Sun, Mar 01, 2009 at 02:57:46AM -0800, Jeff Kirsher wrote: > I am personally sorry that nothing has been done regarding this patch. > I still have this patch in my local tree. I admit that this patch > has been on the low priority list, so I will make sure the patch is > current this week and respond accordingly this week. The whole thing has been somewhat low-priority indeed given the probable age of some non-MII contenders. OTOH it would be quite sad (and locally problematic) to see support for those non-MII cards vanish come 2.6.29. Subsequently it would then be nice to devise non-MII support in some structured way that enables us to support them without much burden (code-wise) on proper standards-supporting MII cards. Thank you, Andreas Mohr