Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:59:21 -0500 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: eepro100: wait_for_cmd_done timeout |
| |
On Fri, Mar 28, 2003 at 11:42:00AM +0000, Chris Bacott wrote: > > Thanks for the suggestion... > > I got another one, telling me to have a look at the e100 driver, > > and this raises a question I have for quite a long time : why does > > the Kernel have two different supports for the same hardware ? > > Is this a migration plan, a long run "please switch from eepro100 > > to e100" ? > > Is there a better working one ? > > > Becuase, IIRC, eepro100 is the original EtherExpress100 Nic driver written by > Becker. the e100 Driver is written initially by Intel, and is a obviously > newer. Question is, would you want to use a driver written by the > manufacturer of the chip itself, or use a driver that has been in use for > MANY years, and has been proven solid.
This statement is utterly ridiculous, considering that the poster is having problems with the eepro100 driver. It is obviously, provably _NOT_ solid.
In Red Hat's experience, some people find eepro100 very stable for them, some people find e100 very stable for them. There is no driver which is 100% stable for all people at all times.
Jeff
- 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/
| |