From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: e1000: backport ich9 support from 7.5.5 ? Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:11:25 -0400 Message-ID: <4685838D.9080108@garzik.org> References: <1183138159.17243.16.camel@blaa> <20070629175006.GB3917@falooley.org> <468571C6.3090305@garzik.org> <46857C08.4030303@intel.com> <20070629150350.414553d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Kok, Auke" , Jason Lunz , Mark McLoughlin , e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:60618 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755603AbXF2WLb (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2007 18:11:31 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070629150350.414553d4.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 29 Jun 2007 14:39:20 -0700 > "Kok, Auke" wrote: > >> That's why we want to introduce a second e1000 driver (named differently, pick >> any name) that contains the new code base, side-by-side into the kernel with the >> current e1000. > > Sounds like a reasonable approach to me (it has plenty of precedent). But > I forget what all the other issues were, so ignore me. Given past history with duplicate drivers and the problems that they cause -- I know, I've caused some of those problems :( -- I strongly recommend against when it can be avoided. Leaving e1000 with current hardware, and a new e1001 for newer hardware should be easier to manage for all involved, without the headaches that duplicate drivers cause. An "e1001" approach also means we have a much greater chance of encouraging Intel down the path of clean driver-ness. Jeff