Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:52:19 -0400 From: Brenden Grace <bcg@intelli7.com> To: Peter Buckingham <peter@pantasys.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Device probe issue with an em(4) compatible device Message-ID: <1096487538.2670.1147.camel@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <415B0DDA.2040200@pantasys.com> References: <1096476707.2670.1088.camel@localhost.localdomain> <415AF2D0.7090002@pantasys.com> <1096485467.2670.1127.camel@localhost.localdomain> <415B0DDA.2040200@pantasys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2004-09-29 at 15:32, Peter Buckingham wrote: > experience then just not compiling in the em driver or an ugly like i > describe (or you suggest) should be fine. I wasn't trying to be rude, but DEVICE_PROBE(9) seems to describe how conflicts like this should be handled. I was wondering if I am in fact correct that devices that attempt to be generic enough for wide support (accepting PCI_ANY_ID) should also properly pass the probing (by returning some negative) so that a driver that may better fit the exact device can attach. > If you are doing it for the > later reason why aren't you just extending the em driver to support your > device? I _really_ am only interested in answers to the above question. -- Brenden C. Grace Intelli7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1096487538.2670.1147.camel>