Re: Tighten up serverworks workaround.

Alan Cox (alan@redhat.com)
Mon, 3 Mar 2003 09:42:37 -0500 (EST)


> We are a bit astonished since we expected serverworks-based hardware to perform
> _better_ than VIA...

My experience is that in general it does.

> The email you commented is only a small hint that within -pre5 there are still
> declared-unknown parts of the chipset. Based on the theory that they are named
> "unknown" because nobody around here knows them, it might have been an adequate
> idea to ask someone from serverworks, or not? This is in no way meant offensive.

Sure, but lets not give senior folks at Serverworks a full blast of l/k.
Its better to sumarise the issues. In some cases vendors do have docs,
so the unknown device ids missing from lspci for example can be dealt with
outside already
-
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/