RFC: Evolution of the em driver

[Jack Vogel]

On 10/31/07, Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at 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