netdev - Re: [PATCH 14/16] RealView: Use the in-kernel smc911x.c driver on RealView

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 4 Nov 2008 16:12:26 +0000
From:	Steve.Glendinning@...c.com
To:	jeff@...zik.org
Cc:	Bill Gatliff <bgat@...lgatliff.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
	Guennadi Liakhovetski <g.liakhovetski@....de>,
	Ian.Saturley@...c.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/16] RealView: Use the in-kernel smc911x.c driver on	RealView

Hi Jeff,

Russell's was the last response on this subject, so I guess there are no 
strong objections?

If I add the missing features (to bring the smsc911x driver up to feature 
parity with smc911x) before the next merge window, would you accept a 
patchset to add it and deprecate the existing driver?

Regards,
--
Steve Glendinning
SMSC GmbH
m: +44 777 933 9124
e: steve.glendinning@...c.com

__________________

Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> wrote on 21/10/2008 
19:46:53:

> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 11:26:42AM +0100, Steve.Glendinning@...c.com 
wrote:
> > Almost all the feedback I've had has been positive, but I've had a few
> > "can't you just fix the in-tree driver?" responses.  The trouble is 
it's
> > not a *small* piece of work!
> 
> Which is reasonable given your summary, since...
> 
> > smsc911x
> > - uses functions instead of macros, making it more readable
> > - uses napi (and manages significantly higher throughput because of 
it)
> > - uses phylib
> > - passes checkpatch.pl
> > - has workarounds for older LAN911x variants
> > 
> > smc911x
> > - is already in-tree (not really technical, but still important)
> > - has support for pxa dma*
> > - has dynamic bus width config
>
> .. we want to avoid having two drivers for the same device, but not
> supporting these features would be seen as a regression.

Exactly, we already have two drivers.  Only one is currently in-tree, but
both have users.  The question is where we go from here?

I believe it's much easier to bring smsc911x up to feature parity with
smc911x than vice-versa.  The dynamic bus configuration is simple enough
to add, and Bill Gatliff has offered to help out with PXA DMA support.
I'd like us to reach a consensus first though, so we all know the plan
moving forward!

Regards,
--
Steve Glendinning
SMSC GmbH
m: +44 777 933 9124
e: steve.glendinning@...c.com

--
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