From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262821AbUKXTvf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:51:35 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262823AbUKXTvf (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:51:35 -0500 Received: from lucidpixels.com ([66.45.37.187]:26773 "HELO lucidpixels.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262821AbUKXTvU (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:51:20 -0500 Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 14:51:16 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Piszcz X-X-Sender: jpiszcz@p500 To: Jeff Garzik cc: Jan-Benedict Glaw , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: tulip question: tulip.o vs de4x5.o In-Reply-To: <41A4DF61.8050008@pobox.com> Message-ID: References: <20041124073628.GJ2067@lug-owl.de> <41A4DF61.8050008@pobox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Thanks for all the feedback, I am using the tulip driver, it seems to be working well. On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Jeff Garzik wrote: > Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote: >> On Tue, 2004-11-23 12:28:54 -0500, Justin Piszcz >> wrote in message : >> >>> Each driver works, I have not benchmarked performance with one over the >>> other with ttcp yet; however, does anyone have any experience with using >>> one over the other? I see the tulip has several options and the de4x5 >>> seems to be a rather generic driver. >> >> >> The de4x5 driver supports some older revisions of the tulip chipset >> which aren't supported by the tulip driver. I guess it could be made to >> support those, too, but nobody did that up to now. > > Incorrect, the older chips are supported by the de2104x driver. > > de4x5 will be going away. > > >> You can actually see the difference on older Alphas: de4x5 works while >> tulip doesn't transmit or receive a single packet (getting netdev >> watchdogs later on...). > > That's a bug in tulip. > > Jeff > > >