Re: [PATCH] eepro100.c, kernel 2.4.1
Alan Cox (alan@redhat.com)
Thu, 8 Feb 2001 02:42:52 -0500 (EST)
> It's the printk that gets it wrong, although that's harmless.
> Intel's documentation states that the bug does NOT exist if the
> bits 0 and 1 in eeprom[3] are 1. Thus, the workaround is correct,
> the printk is wrong.
So why does it fix the problem for him. His report and your reply don't
make sense viewed together
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/