From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 31 16:36:17 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C78FE16A417 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.189]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BACC13C4A5 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:36:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jfvogel@gmail.com) Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b2so174811nfb for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:36:17 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=dh62nfb4bX5pJsP3zYaUBZ/HcJf5RazE12Z27/RXEIk=; b=NDKldWK8oK7U0PA6dET87R+GrB1Y8O8mm4FfwdGjFCEFZIbqhKcAuOmhVen8pJHzlWxRl9gsd7p7s2NqjzcPrT6Zu9XwpupmwnGJFLmQvn9za42FTNrAAdO7hslk+9C5fPJsXU3nxRHnd9DNSidBCgKNUc7Bfg8+uxiM3tM+4Xc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=LlvVfHk3lj/5Sd0PcFT5aQBvbdBdPLZEmI3tW/qVMsGHLTvqEv45gJm2wEC7Ta6+Pmls+BYx4D9uTtzBhEfMi1MU8oMgFuVuPCR2PWmYVriITnXTwiZvxf3rw2kyWHKGY7FzFbmLonrsQSdqjkqXIEqcFcYEMs46N2xw2oODbAg= Received: by 10.86.65.11 with SMTP id n11mr6717927fga.1193848176809; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.86.100.19 with HTTP; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:29:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <2a41acea0710310929o518c5f73l21513790bf5f378@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 09:29:36 -0700 From: "Jack Vogel" To: "Peter Jeremy" In-Reply-To: <20071031114447.GC70883@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <2a41acea0710291045m6f1d2acw78c26a455ea3894d@mail.gmail.com> <2a41acea0710301001k60442b26uae186209ac484780@mail.gmail.com> <4727F13F.1030607@samsco.org> <20071031081638.GA13564@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <20071031114447.GC70883@server.vk2pj.dyndns.org> Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" , FreeBSD Current , FreeBSD Stable List Subject: Re: RFC: Evolution of the em driver X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:36:17 -0000 On 10/31/07, Peter Jeremy 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). :-) > > A separate driver is probably cleaner. > > 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