Subject: Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000

From: Dan Noe <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:39:26 -0400

Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 08, 2008 at 04:12:29PM -0400, Dan Noe wrote:
>> It would be nice if lspci could display what driver had claimed a 
>> particular device
> 
> You need to upgrade to a more recent version of lspci -- it already does
> this ;-)

Hah, thanks.  That is useful and very new :)  I built a newer lspci and 
I see it is now displayed with the -k option.

> Maybe 'status' would be a better name than 'broken'.  We could even
> default it to 'unclaimed' then.  Or 'driver_status' to avoid conflicting
> with some bus that might have a 'status' bit we try to report through
> sysfs.

I agree however that the opportunity for more status would be good.  And 
status is a better name than "broken".  This way it is easy to scan all 
devices on the system via sysfs and easily visualize via lspci or some 
other tool:

1) Unclaimed devices

2) Devices that aren't working properly - and why (please something more 
than "This device is not working properly" :)

3) Devices that are claimed and working properly

Cheers,
Dan

-- 
                     /--------------- - -  -  -   -   -
                     |  Daniel Noe
                     |  http://isomerica.net/~dpn/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., 
Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone