From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "John W. Linville" Subject: Re: [PATCH 2.6.17-rc6] Remove Prism II support from Orinoco Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:24:39 -0400 Message-ID: <20060612152434.GA14851@tuxdriver.com> References: <20060610175010.GA4617@divinity> <20060610180850.GP7420@redhat.com> <20060611222719.GA13139@redhat.com> <20060611224054.GB13139@redhat.com> <20060611224954.GA2880@divinity> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dave Jones , netdev@vger.kernel.org, proski@gnu.org, hermes@gibson.dropbear.id.au Return-path: Received: from rrcs-70-61-120-52.midsouth.biz.rr.com ([70.61.120.52]:32524 "EHLO ra.tuxdriver.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752037AbWFLPZL (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jun 2006 11:25:11 -0400 To: Faidon Liambotis Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060611224954.GA2880@divinity> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 01:49:54AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > Having two drivers supporting the same set of hardware seems pretty > pointless to me. Plus, it confuses hotplugging/automatic detection. This subject comes-up from time to time. In fact, I'm pretty sure it came-up very recently w.r.t. orinoco and hostap. The consensus seems to be that drivers should have IDs for all devices they support, even if that means that some devices are supported by multiple drivers. This leaves the choice of which driver to use in the hands of the user and/or distro. If the Orinoco guys want this patch, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I'm not inclined to take it. John -- John W. Linville linville@tuxdriver.com