From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jan 25 10:53:10 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from feral.com (feral.com [192.67.166.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 589B637B6A9 for ; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:52:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeppo.feral.com (IDENT:mjacob@zeppo [192.67.166.71]) by feral.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA22449; Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:52:46 -0800 Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:52:45 -0800 (PST) From: Matthew Jacob Reply-To: mjacob@feral.com To: Dennis Cc: Jonathan Lemon , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: if_fxp driver info In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.0.20010125135815.03ce21b0@mail.etinc.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Dennis wrote: > 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. That's the crux - the spec isn't available w/o NDA. > > > > >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