From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 25 10:51:43 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from etinc.com (et-gw.etinc.com [207.252.1.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4012737B6A9 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:51:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from dbsys.etinc.com (dbsys.etinc.com [207.252.1.18]) by etinc.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA73761; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 13:53:38 GMT (envelope-from dennis@etinc.com) Message-Id: <5.0.0.25.0.20010125135815.03ce21b0@mail.etinc.com> X-Sender: dennis@mail.etinc.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 14:00:47 -0500 To: mjacob@feral.com From: Dennis Subject: Re: if_fxp driver info Cc: Jonathan Lemon , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.0.25.0.20010125130845.030de0f0@mail.etinc.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 01:24 PM 01/25/2001, Matthew Jacob wrote: > > If they have a published, freely distributable driver for linux. why would > > you have to sign an NDA to port it to FreeBSD? > >You don't. But reverse engineering isn't always complete. there is a difference between "reverse engineering" and porting a commented source driver with a spec for the part available. >I should know- having gone through hell for the Gigabit NIC for *BSD... mostly >reverse engineered from the Linux driver. Your problem here was that the LINUX driver was reverse engineered. So your source was faulty. The case with the intel driver is the "ASSumption" that its been done correctly and that the procedures for using the functions available are correct. Dennis >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message