From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Create IP100A Driver
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:54:27 -0400
Message-ID: <20060727125421.GB22935@tuxdriver.com>
References: <1154030065.5967.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@osdl.org, jgarzik@pobox.com
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1751242AbWG0Myu@vger.kernel.org>
To: Jesse Huang <jesse@icplus.com.tw>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1154030065.5967.15.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 03:54:25PM -0400, Jesse Huang wrote:
> From: Jesse Huang <jesse@icplus.com.tw>
> 
> This is the first version of IP100A Linux Driver.

One general comment is that your patch is whitespace-damaged,
undoubtedly mangled by your mailer.  I would suggest that you use
a text- or curses-based mailer (like mutt or even mail) for sending
patches, but I'm sure there are graphical mailers that can be trained
to not be "too smart".

> +static struct pci_device_id ipf_pci_tbl[] __devinitdata = {
> +       {0x1186, 0x1002, 0x1186, 0x1002, 0, 0, 0},
> +       {0x1186, 0x1002, 0x1186, 0x1003, 0, 0, 1},
> +       {0x1186, 0x1002, 0x1186, 0x1012, 0, 0, 2},
> +       {0x1186, 0x1002, 0x1186, 0x1040, 0, 0, 3},
> +       {0x1186, 0x1002, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 4},
> +       {0x13F0, 0x0201, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 5},
> +       {0x13F0, 0x0200, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0, 0, 6},
> +       {0,}
> +};

This PCI ID table is identical to the one in the sundance driver.
What advantage does this driver offer over sundance?

Thanks,

John
-- 
John W. Linville
linville@tuxdriver.com