From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tomasz Chmielewski Subject: Re: [PATCH] Intel IXP4xx network drivers v.2 - Ethernet and HSS Date: Tue, 08 May 2007 19:31:26 +0200 Message-ID: <4640B3EE.1020707@wpkg.org> References: <464034CF.20700@wpkg.org> <20070508155201.GA1251@xi.wantstofly.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Lennert Buytenhek , Alexey Zaytsev , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Michael Jones To: Krzysztof Halasa Return-path: Received: from mail.syneticon.net ([213.239.212.131]:41911 "EHLO mail2.syneticon.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S965337AbXEHRct (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 May 2007 13:32:49 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Krzysztof Halasa schrieb: > Lennert Buytenhek writes: > >> There _is_ an ARM BE version of Debian. >> >> It's not an official port, but it's not maintained any worse than >> the 'official' LE ARM Debian port is. > > Hmm... That changes a bit. Perhaps we should forget about > that LE thing then, and (at best) put that trivial workaround? Does using ixp4xx on LE have any other drawbacks than inferior network performance? And talking about network performance, what numbers are we talking about (LE vs BE; 30% performance hit on LE, more, or less)? -- Tomasz Chmielewski http://wpkg.org