I'm a little confused about the status of the EEPro100 driver.
The version in the current kernel has 2 version numbers, and 2
dates:
v1.09j-t 9/29/99 Donald Becker
and
$Revision: 1.36 $ 2000/11/17 Modified by Andrey V. Savochkin
While the driver available at
http://www.scyld.com/network/eepro100.html has a version and date
of v1.19 12/19/2001.
A couple questions:
(1) Has this driver code "forked"?
(2) Is there a technical reason that Mr. Beckers version is not
being kept up to date?
(3) We are experiencing a slight problem with the current version
( eth1: card reports no resources.) that is supposedly fixed in
v1.19. Are there plans to integrate the current v1.19 into the main
line?
--
Share and Enjoy.
Petro wrote:
>
> I'm a little confused about the status of the EEPro100 driver.
>
> The version in the current kernel has 2 version numbers, and 2
> dates:
>
> v1.09j-t 9/29/99 Donald Becker
> and
> $Revision: 1.36 $ 2000/11/17 Modified by Andrey V. Savochkin
>
> While the driver available at
> http://www.scyld.com/network/eepro100.html has a version and date
> of v1.19 12/19/2001.
>
> A couple questions:
>
> (1) Has this driver code "forked"?
Yes, a long time ago
> (2) Is there a technical reason that Mr. Beckers version is not
> being kept up to date?
No, a political one, Mr. Becker doesn't like us :) He has refused to
send patches for any kernel, for a long time now.
> (3) We are experiencing a slight problem with the current version
> ( eth1: card reports no resources.) that is supposedly fixed in
> v1.19. Are there plans to integrate the current v1.19 into the main
> line?
No. His fix is not "the right one". There is a gentleman at Sun with
access to the eepro100 documentation, Steve Parker, who has kindly lent
us his brain and time to fix up the driver.
Long term, it is going to be replaced with e100 from Intel, as soon as
that driver is in good shape.
Jeff
--
Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal
Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel."
MandrakeSoft | - goats.com
Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Long term, it is going to be replaced with e100 from Intel, as soon as
> that driver is in good shape.
Any ETA on that? (Make them really support the ethtool IOCTLs first :))
In the past, I heard there were licensing problems, have those
been cleared up?
Thanks,
Ben
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
Ben Greear wrote:
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > Long term, it is going to be replaced with e100 from Intel, as soon as
> > that driver is in good shape.
>
> Any ETA on that? (Make them really support the ethtool IOCTLs first :))
Soon but not terribly soon. Intel has been responsive to feedback from
Andrew Morton and myself. Once it passes our review and Intel's
testing, it will go in. eepro100 will live on for a while, until we are
certain e100 is stable, though. (and eepro100 won't disappear from 2.4
at all)
> In the past, I heard there were licensing problems, have those
> been cleared up?
Things are looking hopeful on this front. e1000 is going to be
submitted for inclusion into the kernel soon, reportedly with a GPL /
BSD + patent grant license. e100 should follow suit.
This hasn't happened yet, so I don't want to say "yes" for sure...
Jeff
--
Jeff Garzik | "I went through my candy like hot oatmeal
Building 1024 | through an internally-buttered weasel."
MandrakeSoft | - goats.com
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:29:04AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Ben Greear wrote:
> > Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > > Long term, it is going to be replaced with e100 from Intel, as soon as
> > > that driver is in good shape.
> > Any ETA on that? (Make them really support the ethtool IOCTLs first :))
> Soon but not terribly soon. Intel has been responsive to feedback from
> Andrew Morton and myself. Once it passes our review and Intel's
> testing, it will go in. eepro100 will live on for a while, until we are
> certain e100 is stable, though. (and eepro100 won't disappear from 2.4
> at all)
So what do you suggest people like Mr. Greear and I do in the mean
time?
--
Share and Enjoy.
Petro wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 12:29:04AM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>Ben Greear wrote:
>>
>>>Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>>
>>>>Long term, it is going to be replaced with e100 from Intel, as soon as
>>>>that driver is in good shape.
>>>>
>>>Any ETA on that? (Make them really support the ethtool IOCTLs first :))
>>>
>>Soon but not terribly soon. Intel has been responsive to feedback from
>>Andrew Morton and myself. Once it passes our review and Intel's
>>testing, it will go in. eepro100 will live on for a while, until we are
>>certain e100 is stable, though. (and eepro100 won't disappear from 2.4
>>at all)
>>
>
> So what do you suggest people like Mr. Greear and I do in the mean
> time?
It's easy enough to download the e100 from Intel's site if you
want to use it. I will continue to try to use the eepro100 unless
I find problems with my particular hardware NICS. The eepro100
still supports MII-IOCTLS better than the e100 supports ethtool
interfaces, and I like to know all those twisty little bits!
Ben
>
>
--
Ben Greear <[email protected]> <Ben_Greear AT excite.com>
President of Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
ScryMUD: http://scry.wanfear.com http://scry.wanfear.com/~greear
Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> writes:
> Soon but not terribly soon. Intel has been responsive to feedback from
> Andrew Morton and myself. Once it passes our review and Intel's
> testing, it will go in. eepro100 will live on for a while, until we are
> certain e100 is stable, though. (and eepro100 won't disappear from 2.4
> at all)
Would be a lot nicer to see someone spending the time pulling the
useful bits out of e100 and putting it into eepro100. e100 is ugly and
bloated for no reason.
Jes
Jes Sorensen wrote:
> Would be a lot nicer to see someone spending the time pulling the
> useful bits out of e100 and putting it into eepro100. e100 is ugly and
> bloated for no reason.
When it passes my review, it will not be.
e100 + my desired changes == eepro100 + my desired changes
--
Jeff Garzik | "UNIX enhancements aren't."
Building 1024 | -- says /usr/games/fortune
MandrakeSoft |
>>>>> "Jeff" == Jeff Garzik <[email protected]> writes:
Jeff> Jes Sorensen wrote:
>> Would be a lot nicer to see someone spending the time pulling the
>> useful bits out of e100 and putting it into eepro100. e100 is ugly
>> and bloated for no reason.
Jeff> When it passes my review, it will not be.
Jeff> e100 + my desired changes == eepro100 + my desired changes
Guess I just prefer to build bottom up with a basic clean code base
rather than a gross messy and bloated base.
Jes
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Would be a lot nicer to see someone spending the time pulling the
> > useful bits out of e100 and putting it into eepro100. e100 is ugly and
> > bloated for no reason.
>
> When it passes my review, it will not be.
> e100 + my desired changes == eepro100 + my desired changes
Will it be possible to use the vlan code in the kernel with e100? From
what I can see Intel has its own way of doing vlans and that seems
powerful but overcomplicated to me.
endre
[email protected] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
> > > Would be a lot nicer to see someone spending the time pulling the
> > > useful bits out of e100 and putting it into eepro100. e100 is ugly and
> > > bloated for no reason.
> >
> > When it passes my review, it will not be.
> > e100 + my desired changes == eepro100 + my desired changes
>
> Will it be possible to use the vlan code in the kernel with e100? From
> what I can see Intel has its own way of doing vlans and that seems
> powerful but overcomplicated to me.
If it's non-standard, it's not getting in the kernel. We have VLAN
stuff already...
--
Jeff Garzik | "UNIX enhancements aren't."
Building 1024 | -- says /usr/games/fortune
MandrakeSoft |