From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sun, 19 May 2002 10:56:15 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sun, 19 May 2002 10:56:14 -0400 Received: from panic.tn.gatech.edu ([130.207.137.62]:677 "HELO gtf.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Sun, 19 May 2002 10:56:14 -0400 Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:56:14 -0400 From: Jeff Garzik To: Tobias Ringstrom Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , casdcsdc sdfccsdcsd , Kernel Mailing List , Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: davicom 9102 and linux 2.5 Message-ID: <20020519105614.A10528@gtf.org> In-Reply-To: <20020518181821.GA3683@conectiva.com.br> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, May 19, 2002 at 11:06:30AM +0200, Tobias Ringstrom wrote: > Jeff, would you care to enlighten us as to why this was done? To educate > users that the Davicom chip is really a (bad) tulip clone? The move was mainly motivated by long term programmer direction, not a Config.in user interface change (which in hindsight could have been done better). Davicom and other tulip-related files are being organized into drivers/net/tulip, and eventually they will be sharing code from a tulip_lib.c file or similar. My long term idea is to have a shared lib providing the core for drivers which support: 21040/1 chips 21140/2/3 chips Xircom chips ...and then all other tulip clones will probably be rolled into a "tulip_clone.c". i.e. organize the tulip chips into major families, with a central tulip_lib.c from which they all share code. Jeff