[RFC: 2.6 patch] CONFIG_FORCEDETH updates

[RFC: 2.6 patch] CONFIG_FORCEDETH updates

[Adrian Bunk]

This patch contains the following possible updates:
- let FORCEDETH no longer depend on EXPERIMENTAL
- remove the "Reverse Engineered" from the option text:
  for the user it's important which hardware the driver supports, not
  how it was developed


Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>

--- linux-2.6.16-rc2-mm1-full/drivers/net/Kconfig.old	2006-02-12 02:23:31.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.16-rc2-mm1-full/drivers/net/Kconfig	2006-02-12 02:24:04.000000000 +0100
@@ -1370,10 +1370,10 @@
 	  <file:Documentation/networking/net-modules.txt>.  The module will be
 	  called b44.
 
 config FORCEDETH
-	tristate "Reverse Engineered nForce Ethernet support (EXPERIMENTAL)"
-	depends on NET_PCI && PCI && EXPERIMENTAL
+	tristate "nForce Ethernet support"
+	depends on NET_PCI && PCI
 	help
 	  If you have a network (Ethernet) controller of this type, say Y and
 	  read the Ethernet-HOWTO, available from
 	  <http://www.tldp.org/docs.html#howto>.

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] CONFIG_FORCEDETH updates

[Lee Revell]

On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 18:52 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> This patch contains the following possible updates:
> - let FORCEDETH no longer depend on EXPERIMENTAL
> - remove the "Reverse Engineered" from the option text:
>   for the user it's important which hardware the driver supports, not
>   how it was developed

Is this driver as stable as one that was developed with proper
documentation?  I prefer to know that something as elementary as a fast
ethernet controller had to be reverse engineered so I can avoid
supporting a vendor so hostile to Linux.

Lee

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] CONFIG_FORCEDETH updates

[Alistair John Strachan]

On Sunday 12 February 2006 22:03, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 18:52 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch contains the following possible updates:
> > - let FORCEDETH no longer depend on EXPERIMENTAL
> > - remove the "Reverse Engineered" from the option text:
> >   for the user it's important which hardware the driver supports, not
> >   how it was developed
>
> Is this driver as stable as one that was developed with proper
> documentation?  I prefer to know that something as elementary as a fast
> ethernet controller had to be reverse engineered so I can avoid
> supporting a vendor so hostile to Linux.

Although NVIDIA continue to maintain their own driver, I know forcedeth has 
had contributions from at least a couple of NVIDIA employees. Also, I've 
personally used the driver on nForce2, nForce3 and now nForce4 SLI boards and 
it's rock solid.

Adrian's change is a good one, IMO.

-- 
Cheers,
Alistair.

'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.'
Third year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.

Re: [RFC: 2.6 patch] CONFIG_FORCEDETH updates

[Arthur Othieno]

On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 05:03:36PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Sun, 2006-02-12 at 18:52 +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > This patch contains the following possible updates:
> > - let FORCEDETH no longer depend on EXPERIMENTAL
> > - remove the "Reverse Engineered" from the option text:
> >   for the user it's important which hardware the driver supports, not
> >   how it was developed
> 
> Is this driver as stable as one that was developed with proper
> documentation?

Been using it on nForce since v0.19 (circa 2003) with no problems.
I doubt there are that many (significant) users of the binary driver
left..

And like Alistair pointed out:

  drivers/net/forcedeth:17: * Copyright (c) 2004 NVIDIA Corporation

> I prefer to know that something as elementary as a fast ethernet
> controller had to be reverse engineered so I can avoid supporting
> a vendor so hostile to Linux.

Then how about moving the "Reverse Engineered" to the help text instead?