On Mon, Feb 13, 2006 at 10:53:43AM -0500, Jay Estabrook wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 03:41:24AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > So should the 21040 and 21041 be switched from de2104x to de4x5, or should > > de2104x be added to the installer? I seem to recall that I had problems > > with de2104x on my 21040 as well; and at least in 2.6.15, the tulip driver > > doesn't work at all for my card, I have to use de4x5. > > The discover1-data package seems to have de4x5 listed for *all* of these PCI > > IDs, but I think we may be using the kernel's map now with 2.6 (via udev). > I don't know of any problems using "tulip" on the 2114x chipsets. And > I don't think full duplex will significantly increase the throughput > of a 2104x chipset, so, yes, I'd think that using de4x5 for any 2104x > and tulip fo any 2114x might be the way to go... FWIW, I've tested the current de2104x module now on my system with the Debian 2.6.15 kernel, and it seems to run fine (this is with 1011:0002), so I don't personally have any basis at this point for recommending a change. Instead, I'm going to go ahead and enable de2104x in d-i for beta2 (and disable de4x5, which has no associated PCI IDs currently!), and wait for feedback. I've opened bug #352765 against the linux-2.6 package, to track any feedback regarding these driver choices. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature