Subject: RE: A new wm driver
To: Jason Thorpe <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Pascal Renauld <email@example.com>
Date: 12/17/2003 13:31:59
Well, it's just that we had some issues with specific hardware and felt =
that the hardware was much better supported in the em driver. The =
current NetBSD driver is 3500 lines against 11400 for the one coming =
from FreeBSD. The lower layer part of the driver (5000 lines) is =
dedicated to tuning of the different boards.
For those interested, the source code is available via anonymous FTP at =
From: Jason Thorpe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Wed 12/17/2003 12:10 PM
To: Pascal Renauld
Subject: Re: A new wm driver
On Dec 17, 2003, at 7:22 AM, Pascal Renauld wrote:
> I ported the latest wm driver (originally em) from FreeBSD to NetBSD.
> The driver behaves correctly on the machines in our lab, but more
> testing is necessary on other hardware. This driver supports the
> latest Intel Gigabit boards and has much more hardware tuning than the
> current version. My company, Network Storage Solutions has decided to
> give the source code back to the NetBSD project. If there is an
> interest to include it in the CVS repository, i have the source code
The wm driver in -current supports the latest Intel Gig-E boards/chips,
too. I don't see any reason to pull in the "em" driver from FreeBSD,
particularly considering that it won't work on all of the platforms
that the current "wm" driver works on.
It would be interesting to perhaps tweak the tuning of the current "wm"
driver, however. Do you have specific examples of tuning differences
between the drivers?
-- Jason R. Thorpe <email@example.com>