James Carlson wrote:
> Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> 1) No support for automatic link negotation/reporting. This means it
>> won't work with nwam.
>> 2) No support for full MTU vlans.
>> 3) Closed source.
>>
>
> None of those things matter for the existing users. ;-}
>
nwam will start to matter when we switch to using network/physical:nwam
by default.
>
>> Additionally, I think this driver gets ~0 support.
>>
>
> It hasn't needed any. In general, as a simple 10/100 interface, an elxl
> card is as easy and reliable as it gets.
>
The driver is neither simple or easy. Although there are open source
alternatives that might work better.
>
>> Indeed, I don't have
>> any of the "newer" MII capable 3com parts ready at hand, but only older
>> non-MII versions (3c900-TPO, which is 10 Mbps only for example.) Its
>> now non-trivial to perform support for these parts.
>>
>
> Check with the lab in Burlington. We had quite a few 10/100 cards using
> elxl -- 3C905's, if I remember correctly -- set up in systems used for
> IPMP and routing protocol testing. I have no idea whether they would
> have MII or not; that's an interface I haven't seen (at least in
> external form) in almost 20 years. They're all 100BASE-TX, as far as I
> know.
>
The issue of MII is really one of internal MAC/PHY bus and 802.3u style
registers.
External MII connectors don't concern me at all.
>
>> Finally, there is a community alternative available, that is not
>> integrated into ON. Murayama has written an alternative driver, but
>> I've not spent any time with it.
>>
>
> What would it take to integrate a replacement?
>
> Nuking 3C905 would be another reason to go with Linux instead ...
>
I don't know. I should probably have a look.
- Garrett
