From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:00:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <47FBDBE9.9040700@garzik.org> <20080409193850.GA11763@elte.hu> <47FD2325.2030705@intel.com> <47FE5C89.5060209@intel.com> <20080410192714.GA14055@elte.hu> <47FE8566.5040809@intel.com> <20080411112653.GC9205@elte.hu> <20080411113644.GA7767@infradead.org> <20080411121606.GA25661@elte.hu> <47FF9060.5040202@intel.com> <20080411164542.GA4066@infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" , "Kok, Auke" , Andrew Morton , Jeff Garzik , Matthew Wilcox , e1000-list , NetDev , "Allan, Bruce W" , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "David S. Miller" , Christoph Hellwig , Jesse Brandeburg , "Ronciak, John" , Greg KH , Ingo Molnar , Arjan van de Ven , linux-pci maillist To: Daniel Barkalow Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: e1000-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: e1000-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Daniel Barkalow wrote: > > Wouldn't it make more sense to turn E1000 into a option that does nothing > except select both E1000E and E1000_PCI, and have those two be the options > that build drivers? Yes, that sounds fine too. Although you need to add a depends on PCI to the E1000 thing (because the "select" would not honor the dependencies that E1000E and E1000_PCI have). However: > Then, after a while, we drop the E1000 option entirely I agree we could, but as I tried to explain, I fundamentally don't think we _should_. Why should people _ever_ be asked about whether they want "E1000 PCI support" vs "E1000 PCI-E" support, when it's almost impossible to tell which kind of card you have? In other words, I suspect that anybody who selects E1000 support would actually want the "support both" case, and simply not care. Unless they were _really_ deeply aware of their hardware. > AFAICT, this makes "make oldconfig" always give the same support that the > the earlier kernel had and people get set it to what they actually want if > they notice. .. but that said, I think your patch is certainly better than what we have now (or what Ingo was complaining about for the next merge window). I certainly could live with it. I would just suggest against ever then removing that "generic E1000" choice. Linus ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. Use priority code J8TL2D2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone