Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Sunday 24 January 2010, Wolfgang Denk wrote: >> In message <4b5c5bdf.6020...@grandegger.com> you wrote: >>> You are probably right and your proposal would likely result in more >>> transparent (less ugly) code. There has been some discussion about >>> unifying FEC drivers when the patches (with the same subject) have been >>> submitted for the first time in May last year, but it was not about 512x >>> and 8xx, IIRC. >> You can re-read this discussion here: >> >> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/26927/ >> >> ee especiall Grant's note of 2009-05-21 15:36:11: "If it looks too >> ugly, then just fork the driver." > > Ok. I fully agree with what Grant said in that thread, especially the > way the files could be split. Forking the entire driver would work > as an easy way to get it running at first, and we still have the option > of reorganizing the duplicate parts later in a saner way if that's seen > as helpful. I'd assume that at least some parts of it could become a > lib_fs_enet module that can be shared by all of them.
Yes, I also vote for forking the driver allowing a clean implementation. I don't think it makes sense to share a driver with the 8xx for the reasons you already mentioned. And the 8xx is a dying out arch anyway. Wolfgang. _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev