Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 01:17:03 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: "Hiroki Sato" <hrs@freebsd.org> Cc: jfv@freebsd.org, cvs-src@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, cvs-all@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/dev/em if_em.c if_em.h if_em_hw.c if_em_hw.h if_em_osdep.h Message-ID: <2a41acea0610280117v60a85890x104dd66591539ec1@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20061028.164140.102116870.hrs@allbsd.org> References: <200610280137.k9S1bFq2089275@repoman.freebsd.org> <20061028.161036.78701604.hrs@allbsd.org> <2a41acea0610280019r15d1e40bgbec37d9e0f72633e@mail.gmail.com> <20061028.164140.102116870.hrs@allbsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/28/06, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote:
> "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> wrote
> in <2a41acea0610280019r15d1e40bgbec37d9e0f72633e@mail.gmail.com>:
>
> jf> On 10/28/06, Hiroki Sato <hrs@freebsd.org> wrote:
> jf> > Jack F Vogel <jfv@FreeBSD.org> wrote
> jf> > in <200610280137.k9S1bFq2089275@repoman.freebsd.org>:
> jf> >
> jf> > jf> jfv 2006-10-28 01:37:14 UTC
> jf> > jf>
> jf> > jf> FreeBSD src repository
> jf> > jf>
> jf> > jf> Modified files: (Branch: RELENG_6)
> jf> > jf> sys/dev/em if_em.c if_em.h if_em_hw.c if_em_hw.h
> jf> > jf> if_em_osdep.h
> jf> > jf> Log:
> jf> > jf> Merge of Intel 6.2.9 em driver code.
> jf> > jf> Approved by: re, scottl, jhb, pdeuskar
> jf> > jf>
> jf> > jf> Revision Changes Path
> jf> > jf> 1.65.2.19 +731 -589 src/sys/dev/em/if_em.c
> jf> > jf> 1.32.2.5 +97 -71 src/sys/dev/em/if_em.h
> jf> > jf> 1.16.2.4 +574 -531 src/sys/dev/em/if_em_hw.c
> jf> > jf> 1.15.2.5 +96 -148 src/sys/dev/em/if_em_hw.h
> jf> > jf> 1.14.2.3 +46 -52 src/sys/dev/em/if_em_osdep.h
> jf> >
> jf> > Just wanted to make sure, but is the following change in if_em.c
> jf> > really intentional? This means that the new version no longer
> jf> > supports 82542...
> jf> >
> jf> > Index: if_em.c
> jf> > @@ -116,8 +117,6 @@
> jf> > { 0x8086, E1000_DEV_ID_82541GI_LF, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0},
> jf> > { 0x8086, E1000_DEV_ID_82541GI_MOBILE, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0},
> jf> >
> jf> > - { 0x8086, E1000_DEV_ID_82542, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0},
> jf> > -
> jf> > { 0x8086, E1000_DEV_ID_82543GC_FIBER, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0},
> jf> > { 0x8086, E1000_DEV_ID_82543GC_COPPER, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID, 0},
> jf>
> jf> Yes that was intentional, its an ID that the Intel source has not
> jf> had for some time. When I put it back in our source a while back
> jf> due to a merge our test group came to me and said these adapters
> jf> dont even work with the driver, so clearly no one is using them :)
> jf>
> jf> I asked about dropping the ID to a set of developers and got the OK to drop
> jf> it.
> jf>
> jf> If someone actually speaks up about having hardware that was working and
> jf> now is broken I'll take it all back and we can put the ID back in, is that good
> jf> enough? :)
>
> So here is the report (from nyan@):
>
> em0@pci1:1:0: class=0x020000 card=0x10008086 chip=0x10008086 rev=0x03 hdr=0x00
> vendor = 'Intel Corporation'
> device = '82542 Gigabit Ethernet Controller'
> class = network
> subclass = ethernet
>
> It is not recognized by the new driver at boot time while worked fine
> with the old one. I think we should not remove the existing
> hardware support (especially in -STABLE) if possible.
LOL, so in a few hours of my checkin you got someone with
this hardware to complain? Oh well, its one line, not a big
deal to put back, I will get to it tomorrow, right now i'm going
to bed :)
NIght!
Jack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea0610280117v60a85890x104dd66591539ec1>