From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Taku Izumi Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] e1000,e1000e,igb: make ioport free for adapters that need NO ioport resources Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 17:28:21 +0900 Message-ID: <485F5EA5.9050503@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <485B1B8E.1060108@jp.fujitsu.com> <485D4630.1090007@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Tomohiro Kusumi , "Kirsher, Jeffrey T" To: "Kok, Auke" Return-path: Received: from fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.35]:35613 "EHLO fgwmail5.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751774AbYFWI3O (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jun 2008 04:29:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <485D4630.1090007@intel.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Dear Auke >> * [PATCH 1/3] e1000: make ioport free >> * [PATCH 2/3] e1000e: make ioport free >> * [PATCH 3/3] igb: make ioport free > > I think patch 2 and 3 are way too large since igb and e1000e can be totally ioport > free at all times. There is no need to keep compatibility code for ioport in those > drivers as it's unlikely that this will ever be needed. I left an old implementation in case adapters that need ioport resources appear, but it's true that these codes are a little redundant for igb and e1000e drivers. > So, perhaps you can remove the ioport code from those 2 drivers (e1000e/igb) > completely and resubmit to Jeff Kirsher? OK, I'll send them later. Best regards, Taku Izumi