Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver



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.

--
Peter

Attachment: pgpmLA8lFCRvf.pgp
Description: PGP signature