Messages in this thread | | | From | Alan Cox <> | Subject | Re: Tighten up serverworks workaround. | Date | 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/
| |