Garrett D'Amore Wrote: > Darren J Moffat wrote: >> Cecilia Hu wrote: >>> <Apologize for resending mail to alias, because of typo on subject....> >>> >>> >>> I am sponsoring this case for Quaker Fang. It is to provide a new >>> wireless(802.11b/g) driver, ural(7D), for Ralink RT2500USB chipset. >>> The requested release binding is micro/patch. >>> >>> The architecture and interface are clear enough, so this case is >>> marked as "closed approved automatic". >> >> It isn't clear to me why a separate driver from the existing ral(7D) >> is needed because this is attached via USB rather that PCI. Is the >> RT2500USB that different to the RT2500 that the ral(7D) driver >> supports that a new driver is needed ? >> >> However I did a tiny bit of research and found that *BSD have a >> similar ral/ural split so it seems that other operating systems chose >> this split. > > For Solaris devices, the DDI for USB is *vastly* different than the PCI > DDI at some core fundamental concepts. It would be much harder to have > a unified RAL driver, than (for example) a unified pcwl (PCI/PCMCIA). > > It may be possible to have a common library of shared functionality, but > that may be more work than it is worth. > > Put another way, I think Quaker/Cecilia's plan here makes perfect sense. > >> >> Also is this case setting any precedent that we should attempt to >> prefix USB NIC drivers with 'u' ? > I don't read it that way. It may make sense to use a 'u' prefix > sometimes (as in this case), but I think we should still do it on a case > by case basis. > > Anyway, this is a fasttrack (or maybe even self-review?), so I'm not > sure we can even use it to set precedent like that. (Can you set > precedent without a written opinion?)
Yes, this is a self-review case. And, thanks Garrett for you clarification. -- Cecilia.Hu at Sun.COM Solaris x86 Engineering, Sun Microsystems +86-10-82618200 ext. 82947 / 62673947
