[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120716.222204.1767763009548524229.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 22:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com
Cc: bhutchings@...arflare.com, jdelvare@...e.de,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, thockin@...kin.org, okir@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] natsemi: make cable length magic configurable
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2012 14:57:40 +0100
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:08:54PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-07-16 at 14:26 +0200, Jean Delvare wrote:
>
>> > Furthermore I don't quite get why we can't just go with the module
>> > parameter. As I understand it, this is a crappy driver for crappy, rare
>> > hardware. The driver already has a module parameter to work around a
>> > hardware bug (dspcfg_workaround), I don't quite see why adding a second
>> > one would be a problem. At least it is consistent.
>
>> David can be quite insistent about finding an alternative to module
>> parameters.
>
> The hardware isn't that rare or bad - it's pretty widely deployed in
> 100Mbit systems (including lots of embedded ones) and performs well for
> the systems it's targetting. You'd not use it for a modern server but
> if what you need is 100M it's a fairly good part.
I don't want to hear any excuses for not implementing a configuration
interface properly. I'm sure if I allowed it, everyone would be able
to come up with a special set of circumstances which justified the
module parameter.
Sorry, no.
--
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