Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:29:36 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" <jfvogel@gmail.com> To: "Peter Jeremy" <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, FreeBSD Stable List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver Message-ID: <2a41acea0710310929o518c5f73l21513790bf5f378@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20071031114447.GC70883@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> References: <2a41acea0710291045m6f1d2acw78c26a455ea3894d@mail.gmail.com> <m2myu0q1f0.wl%gnn@neville-neil.com> <2a41acea0710301001k60442b26uae186209ac484780@mail.gmail.com> <4727F13F.1030607@samsco.org> <20071031081638.GA13564@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20071031114447.GC70883@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 10/31/07, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 01:16:39AM -0700, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > >For what it's worth, I agree with Scott. I'd rather see a new and > >separate driver (presumably igb(4)) than a "hacked up" em(4) driver > >trying to handle tons of IC revisions. A good example of the insanity > >the latter causes is nve(4) vs. nfe(4). :-) > > <metoo>A separate driver is probably cleaner.</metoo> > > I'll just make the comment that if a separate driver is written, there > needs to be a clear way for an end user to identify what driver is > needed/preferred for his chipset. We already have cases like > re(4)/rl(4) and sym(4)/ncr(4) where some chips are supported by two > drivers - though generally only one driver fully supports the chip. > This sort of thing is confusing for end users. Yes, this is a good point, and when I'm done I will make sure that only the appropriate ID's will work on a particular driver so this kind of thing does not happen. Jack
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?2a41acea0710310929o518c5f73l21513790bf5f378>