On Wed, 11 Dec 2002 21:42:44 -0500, Donald Becker wrote:
> Note that the second check ignores 100baseT4, despite it have priority
> over 10baseT-*. That was intentional to work around, "a specific issue"
> with a transceiver.
That "specific issue" might be worth documenting. Information on such
quirks is hardest to come by.
> The is no extra cost to the extra bit, and it makes it clear we are
> testing for 10baseT-FDX.
> (The test was originally implemented as part of a complete set of
> cases. The test code needed while building a driver is more complex
> than what you see in the concise final result.)
That was exactly the kind of answer I've been looking for. Nothing beats
some historic background. Thank you.
Roger
|
