Subject: Re: [PATCH] Create IP100A Driver

From: Jeff Garzik <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:14:01 -0400

Jesse Huang wrote:
> Hi John:
> 
> I will try mutt or mail when i want to send next patch. Most different of
> ip100a.c
> and sundance.c are almost same only fix some bugs. The different of ip100a
> and ip100 is in phy. We can use one driver to support those two device, I
> want
> to know what is better for kernel:
> 
> 1. Only updata sundance.c to support IP100A
> 2. Release ip100a.c which support ip100(sundance) to kernel 2.6.x and ask to
> remove sundance.c.
> 3. Release ip100a.c with sundance.c both to kernel 2.6.x
> 
> We hope to use IP100a.c as our product driver, so 2. and 3. will better for
> IC Plus. But we will still follow your suggestion, if you feel 1. was better
> for kernel.

Although it is occasionally OK to duplicate a driver, I do not see a 
compelling case with ip100a.

The stronger case for a single codebase is won on the strengths of lower 
long-term maintenance costs, increased strength of review, doesn't break 
existing sundance driver uses, and re-use of existing testing benefits.

If you feel strongly about not showing "sundance" to your users, you can 
always submit a one-line MODULE_ALIAS() change which permits users to 
load "ip100a" (really sundance.c).  Using MODULE_ALIAS() seems quite 
reasonable, given that IC Plus appears to be taking the lead in future 
Sundance-like chip development.

So, please resubmit as changes to the existing sundance.c.  This is 
better for the standard Linux kernel engineering process.

Thanks,

	Jeff