netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [patch] Re: Gigabit Kconfig problems with yesterday's update

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [patch] Re: Gigabit Kconfig problems with yesterday's update
From: Paul Mackerras <paulus@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2004 20:00:16 +1000
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxx>, Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Randy.Dunlap" <rddunlap@xxxxxxxx>, Danny ter Haar <dth@xxxxxxx>, wa1ter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, dth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Netdev <netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <20040531073211.GA4894@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <40B8A37D.1090802@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040530134544.GE13111@xxxxxxxxx> <20040530143734.GA24627@xxxxxxx> <20040530094120.61b22d2e.rddunlap@xxxxxxxx> <40BA1F25.4080402@xxxxxxxxx> <20040530193706.GG13111@xxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.58.0405301302020.1632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040531073211.GA4894@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
Christoph Hellwig writes:

> Or have a gige chip that's crippled to do only 10/100, like the sungem
> on my ibook.

I think it is not that the sungem itself is crippled, rather that the
phy can only do 10/100.  I agree that the division between 10/100 and
gigabit ethernet is pretty useless.  I note that sungem didn't get put
in the gigabit list, for instance.

Paul.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>