[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0a09e5c0707081224o5dd34da6m2a1c16f4a2b4f59d@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Jul 2007 12:24:59 -0700
From: "Andrew Grover" <andy.grover@...il.com>
To: "Jeff Garzik" <jeff@...zik.org>
Cc: "Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
"Stephen Hemminger" <shemminger@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
"Francois Romieu" <romieu@...zoreil.com>,
"Christoph Hellwig" <hch@...radead.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Jason Lunz" <lunz@...lexsecurity.com>,
"Mark McLoughlin" <markmc@...hat.com>,
e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"Ronciak, John" <john.ronciak@...el.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"Andy Gospodarek" <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: Splitting e1000 (Was: Re: e1000: backport ich9 support from 7.5.5 ?)
On 7/8/07, Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org> wrote:
> * e1000 gets feedback
> * Intel disappears for months
> * Intel reappears with e1000 rewrite
* you ask them for another complete (simpler) rewrite
> * Intel fights tooth and nail when the driver is not accepted verboten
I don't think it must be as-is (i.e. replacing e1000 for all HW) but
don't throw away all the work they've done in architecting the driver
to cleanly handle multiple chip generations.
How about:
1) Considering e1000new's current design, but for ICH9 only
2) test test test
3) Sometime in the future, considering incrementally moving previous
PCIe generations' support from e1000 to e1000new (like I initially
wanted, since that at least means there would be some technical reason
for where the split occurs :-)
Regards -- Andy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists