Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:14:01 -0400 | From | Jeff Garzik <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Create IP100A Driver |
| |
Jesse Huang wrote: > Hi John: > > I will try mutt or mail when i want to send next patch. Most different of > ip100a.c > and sundance.c are almost same only fix some bugs. The different of ip100a > and ip100 is in phy. We can use one driver to support those two device, I > want > to know what is better for kernel: > > 1. Only updata sundance.c to support IP100A > 2. Release ip100a.c which support ip100(sundance) to kernel 2.6.x and ask to > remove sundance.c. > 3. Release ip100a.c with sundance.c both to kernel 2.6.x > > We hope to use IP100a.c as our product driver, so 2. and 3. will better for > IC Plus. But we will still follow your suggestion, if you feel 1. was better > for kernel.
Although it is occasionally OK to duplicate a driver, I do not see a compelling case with ip100a.
The stronger case for a single codebase is won on the strengths of lower long-term maintenance costs, increased strength of review, doesn't break existing sundance driver uses, and re-use of existing testing benefits.
If you feel strongly about not showing "sundance" to your users, you can always submit a one-line MODULE_ALIAS() change which permits users to load "ip100a" (really sundance.c). Using MODULE_ALIAS() seems quite reasonable, given that IC Plus appears to be taking the lead in future Sundance-like chip development.
So, please resubmit as changes to the existing sundance.c. This is better for the standard Linux kernel engineering process.
Thanks,
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |