On 10/31/07, Peter Jeremy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
