Re: r8169 on n2100 (was Re: r8169 mac address change (was Re: [0/3] 2.6.19-rc2: known regressions))

[Lennert Buytenhek <buytenh@wantstofly.org>]

On Sat, Dec 16, 2006 at 01:54:39AM +0100, Francois Romieu wrote:

> > No, that wouldn't make sense, that's like making a workaround depend on
> > arch == i386.
> > 
> > I'm thinking that we should somehow enable this option on the n2100
> > built-in r8169 ports by default only.  Since the n2100 also has a mini-PCI
> > slot, and it is in theory possible to put an r8169 on a mini-PCI card,
> > the workaround probably shouldn't apply to those, so testing for
> > CONFIG_MACH_N2100 also isn't the right thing to do.
> 
> Ok, I thought it was a useability thing.

It is.


> Let aside a few configurations, the sensible default value for this
> option is not clear. I have no objection against a patch but it seems
> a bit academic as long as nobody complains (you can call me lazy too).

I'm thinking that the entire option is just wrong.  It sucks for
distributors to have to make the choice between having it always on
and having it always off.  It sucks for end users compiling their
own kernels, because their ethernet won't work out of the box, and
they will have no idea what's wrong and what to do.
-
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/