From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262850AbUKXUtq (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:49:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262849AbUKXUrh (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:47:37 -0500 Received: from zeus.kernel.org ([204.152.189.113]:33423 "EHLO zeus.kernel.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262848AbUKXUpC (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:45:02 -0500 Message-ID: <41A4DF61.8050008@pobox.com> Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:22:09 -0500 From: Jeff Garzik User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20040922 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan-Benedict Glaw CC: Justin Piszcz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: tulip question: tulip.o vs de4x5.o References: <20041124073628.GJ2067@lug-owl.de> In-Reply-To: <20041124073628.GJ2067@lug-owl.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: > On Tue, 2004-11-23 12:28:54 -0500, Justin Piszcz > wrote in message : > >>Each driver works, I have not benchmarked performance with one over the >>other with ttcp yet; however, does anyone have any experience with using >>one over the other? I see the tulip has several options and the de4x5 >>seems to be a rather generic driver. > > > The de4x5 driver supports some older revisions of the tulip chipset > which aren't supported by the tulip driver. I guess it could be made to > support those, too, but nobody did that up to now. Incorrect, the older chips are supported by the de2104x driver. de4x5 will be going away. > You can actually see the difference on older Alphas: de4x5 works while > tulip doesn't transmit or receive a single packet (getting netdev > watchdogs later on...). That's a bug in tulip. Jeff