From owner-freebsd-hackers Sat Oct 7 17:55:57 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from netplex.com.au (adsl-64-163-195-99.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.163.195.99]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8FB37B502 for ; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 17:55:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from netplex.com.au (peter@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by netplex.com.au (8.11.0/8.9.3) with ESMTP id e980tnG08223; Sat, 7 Oct 2000 17:55:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from peter@netplex.com.au) Message-Id: <200010080055.e980tnG08223@netplex.com.au> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.1.1 10/15/1999 To: Dennis Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: if_fxp question In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20001007111133.01de7dd0@mail.etinc.com> Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2000 17:55:49 -0700 From: Peter Wemm Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Dennis wrote: > At 10:17 PM 10/06/2000, you wrote: > >Dennis wrote: > > > > > > does the fxp driver in 4.1.1 address the PHY issue with the 82259 Revisio n > > > 8 parts? The 4.1-RELEASE drivers doesnt. > > > >Have a look at: > > > >http://www.FreeBSD.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/pci/if_fxp.c?r1=1.77.2.6&only_ with_tag=RELENG_4 > > > > Unfortunately the comment don't say what symptoms are corrected by the fix, > but my assumption is that the answer to my question is "no".... I would have thought that it was obvious. The change between 4.1 and 4.1.1 was to silence a gcc warning. If you need somebody to interpret the fact that the only change was cosmetic, then let me be absolutely clear: NO, NOTHING SIGNIFICANT CHANGED. Cheers, -Peter -- Peter Wemm - peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com; peter@netplex.com.au "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message