Subject: Re: wm(4) versus em(4)
To: Brian Buhrow <email@example.com>
From: Tomofumi Hayashi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 12/08/2006 15:19:08
Hi, Just FYI, some guy ported em driver to NetBSD, however, it just
not versioned up now. If you ported again, it will be nice information.
E-Mail Address: email@example.com
At Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:14:30 -0800,
Brian Buhrow wrote:
> Hello. recently, I've been trying to get the wm(4) driver to work
> with some Intel fiber based gigE cards. I've been having a lot of trouble
> getting the driver to autonegotiate with Cisco 35XX switch gear, and when I
> try to disable autonegotiation, things get even worse. In looking at the
> driver, it seems like it's out of date with respect to the behaviors of the
> newer Intel 8254x chips, especially the fiber based ones. The freeBSD and
> OpenBSD folks are using Intel written drivers which seem to deal quite well
> with the various version of the chip. At this moment, I'm trying to decide
> if it's easier to whip the wm(4) driver into shape, or if it would be
> easier to port the em(4) driver from OpenBSD to NetBSD. I'm sort of
> leaning toward the latter, but wanted to ask here if anyone has thoughts on
> the matter. Is there any advantage to retaining the wm(4) driver over
> porting the em(4) driver from Free/OpenBSD?
> If I were to port the driver, would there be a lot of objection to
> putting it in the tree?
> Any thoughts would be greatly appreaciated.