From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Scott Feldman Subject: Re: [ANN] removal of certain net drivers coming soon: eepro100, xircom_tulip_cb, iph5526 Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 17:58:37 -0800 Message-ID: <1106877517.18167.311.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <41F952F4.7040804@pobox.com> <20050127225725.F3036@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050127153114.72be03e2.davem@davemloft.net> <20050128001430.C22695@flint.arm.linux.org.uk> <20050127164843.08bdb307.davem@davemloft.net> Reply-To: sfeldma@pobox.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Russell King , jgarzik@pobox.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@oss.sgi.com, greg@kroah.com, akpm@osdl.org Return-path: To: "David S. Miller" In-Reply-To: <20050127164843.08bdb307.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 16:48, David S. Miller wrote: > On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 00:14:30 +0000 > Russell King wrote: > > > The fact of the matter is that eepro100.c works on ARM, e100.c doesn't. > > There's a message from me back on 30th June 2004 at about 10:30 BST on > > this very list which generated almost no interest from anyone... > > I see. Since eepro100 just uses a fixed set of RX buffers in the > ring (ie. the DMA links are never changed) it works. eepro100 does a copy if pkt_len < rx_copybreak, otherwise it send up the skb and allocates and links a new one in it's place (see speedo_rx_link). So I would say e100 and eepro100 are the same for >= rx_copybreak. Why does one work and not the other? Is it because the RFD is aligned in eepro100? Russell, what happens with modprobe eepro100 rx_copybreak=0? -scott