Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:32:12 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:32:12 -0500 Received: from nat-pool-rdu.redhat.com ([66.187.233.200]:27793 "EHLO devserv.devel.redhat.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:32:11 -0500 From: Alan Cox Message-Id: <200303031442.h23EgbR02502@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Subject: Re: Tighten up serverworks workaround. To: skraw@ithnet.com (Stephan von Krawczynski) Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:42:37 -0500 (EST) Cc: alan@redhat.com (Alan Cox), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20030303134650.584c9f11.skraw@ithnet.com> from "Stephan von Krawczynski" at Mar 03, 2003 01:46:50 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL6] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 956 Lines: 19 > We are a bit astonished since we expected serverworks-based hardware to perform > _better_ than VIA... My experience is that in general it does. > The email you commented is only a small hint that within -pre5 there are still > declared-unknown parts of the chipset. Based on the theory that they are named > "unknown" because nobody around here knows them, it might have been an adequate > idea to ask someone from serverworks, or not? This is in no way meant offensive. Sure, but lets not give senior folks at Serverworks a full blast of l/k. Its better to sumarise the issues. In some cases vendors do have docs, so the unknown device ids missing from lspci for example can be dealt with outside already - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/