On (06/18/07 09:00), Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > Actually, this project, the idea of having a common layer, would really > really help drivers and is on my personal wish list for a Nemo 2 (GLDv3.1? > GLDv4?) project. I've been pitching a Nemo 2 project around for a few > weeks now, but so far I can't seem to get management to hear my clarion > call. :-) > > Part of the reason I want to centralize this, apart from simplifying device > drivers, is that it can allow the framework to make decisions on the > drivers behalf, to get optimum performance. (For example, the choice as to > when to bcopy, vs. dma, vs. dvma is one that device driver authors often > are faced with, and often have answered poorly. It would be nice if the > framework could provide answers based on observed system performance.) > > The MII layer is another thing that I proposed, because I can see a lot of > (in some cases badly written) replicated code across all drivers, for > dealing with MII. Often that code is inconsistent. For example, iprb uses > a common MII module that doesn't support tuning of autonegotiation, whereas > e1000g uses its own code to do this, whereas hme have yet an entirely > different code. This anarchy really, really needs to end. >
right, and if the MII layer was consolidated into common code, it would be much easier for Brussels to plug into, and reduce the code burden all around.. sounds like someone (Masayuki Murayama?) may have tried this before? --Sowmini
