From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bill Gatliff Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/16] RealView: Use the in-kernel smc911x.c driver on RealView Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 08:25:38 -0500 Message-ID: <48FDD852.7080104@billgatliff.com> References: <1224585726.9330.22.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Steve.Glendinning@smsc.com, Guennadi Liakhovetski , linux-arm-kernel@lists.arm.linux.org.uk, Ian.Saturley@smsc.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Catalin Marinas Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1224585726.9330.22.camel@pc1117.cambridge.arm.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: linux-arm-kernel-bounces@lists.arm.linux.org.uk Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.arm.linux.org.uk List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, 2008-10-21 at 11:26 +0100, Steve.Glendinning@smsc.com wrote: >> The smsc911x driver is still maintained (out of tree), and is used by many >> of our customers. Mainline inclusion is still very much the intention! >> >> Almost all the feedback I've had has been positive, but I've had a few >> "can't you just fix the in-tree driver?" responses. The trouble is it's >> not a *small* piece of work! > > Can we not have both drivers in the kernel until the transition to the > new one has finished? We seem to still have both eepro100.c and e100.c > in the kernel targeting similar chips. I don't have a problem with that. I have standardized my kernels on Steve's driver, though, in anticipation of the transition. So you know which one I'll advocate for. :) b.g. -- Bill Gatliff bgat@billgatliff.com ------------------------------------------------------------------- List admin: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel FAQ: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/faq.php Etiquette: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/mailinglists/etiquette.php