Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Daniel Barkalow
Date: Friday, April 11, 2008 - 3:06 pm

On Fri, 11 Apr 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:


Wouldn't it make more sense to turn E1000 into a option that does nothing 
except select both E1000E and E1000_PCI, and have those two be the options 
that build drivers? Then, after a while, we drop the E1000 option 
entirely, and people are fine as long as they used any of the kernels in 
between (since the system will have forgotten that E1000E was only set by 
an option that has disappeared).

Right now, E1000 means "support both PCI and PCI-E E1000" and E1000E means 
"support PCI-E E1000". I don't see any reason not to add a "support PCI 
E1000" option and keep the semantics of existing options the same and just 
change the implementation.

AFAICT, this makes "make oldconfig" always give the same support that the 
the earlier kernel had and people get set it to what they actually want if 
they notice.

I.e., something like this (plus removing the ID-stealing in e1000):

diff --git a/drivers/net/Kconfig b/drivers/net/Kconfig
index f337800..9078bde 100644
--- a/drivers/net/Kconfig
+++ b/drivers/net/Kconfig
@@ -1955,6 +1955,11 @@ config DL2K
 
 config E1000
 	tristate "Intel(R) PRO/1000 Gigabit Ethernet support"
+	select E1000_PCI
+	select E1000E
+
+config E1000_PCI
+	tristate "Intel(R) PRO/1000 PCI Gigabit Ethernet support"
 	depends on PCI
 	---help---
 	  This driver supports Intel(R) PRO/1000 gigabit ethernet family of
@@ -1976,7 +1981,7 @@ config E1000
 
 config E1000_NAPI
 	bool "Use Rx Polling (NAPI)"
-	depends on E1000
+	depends on E1000_PCI
 	help
 	  NAPI is a new driver API designed to reduce CPU and interrupt load
 	  when the driver is receiving lots of packets from the card. It is
@@ -1990,7 +1995,7 @@ config E1000_NAPI
 
 config E1000_DISABLE_PACKET_SPLIT
 	bool "Disable Packet Split for PCI express adapters"
-	depends on E1000
+	depends on E1000_PCI
 	help
 	  Say Y here if you want to use the legacy receive path for PCI express
 	  hardware.
diff --git a/drivers/net/Makefile b/drivers/net/Makefile
index 3b1ea32..8026e63 100644
--- a/drivers/net/Makefile
+++ b/drivers/net/Makefile
@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 # Makefile for the Linux network (ethercard) device drivers.
 #
 
-obj-$(CONFIG_E1000) += e1000/
+obj-$(CONFIG_E1000_PCI) += e1000/
 obj-$(CONFIG_E1000E) += e1000e/
 obj-$(CONFIG_IBM_EMAC) += ibm_emac/
 obj-$(CONFIG_IBM_NEW_EMAC) += ibm_newemac/
--
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
RE: [regression] e1000e broke e1000 (was: Re: [ANNOUNCE] e ..., Brandeburg, Jesse, (Tue Apr 8, 12:43 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 12:56 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 1:06 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Dan Noe, (Tue Apr 8, 1:12 pm)
showing which hardware is unclaimed, Rick Jones, (Tue Apr 8, 1:13 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 1:19 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Matthew Wilcox, (Tue Apr 8, 1:20 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Kok, Auke, (Tue Apr 8, 1:31 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 1:33 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Tue Apr 8, 1:35 pm)
Re: showing which hardware is unclaimed, Martin Mares, (Tue Apr 8, 1:35 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Martin Mares, (Tue Apr 8, 1:36 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Dan Noe, (Tue Apr 8, 1:39 pm)
Re: [E1000-devel] [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Kok, Auke, (Tue Apr 8, 1:47 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Tue Apr 8, 1:56 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Wed Apr 9, 12:12 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Jeff Garzik, (Wed Apr 9, 12:33 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Wed Apr 9, 12:50 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Bill Davidsen, (Wed Apr 9, 5:52 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Thu Apr 10, 12:27 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Chris Friesen, (Thu Apr 10, 2:20 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Randy Dunlap, (Thu Apr 10, 2:44 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Philip Craig, (Thu Apr 10, 5:46 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Andi Kleen, (Fri Apr 11, 12:54 am)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 1:59 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 4:26 am)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 4:30 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 4:36 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Fri Apr 11, 5:16 am)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Chris Friesen, (Fri Apr 11, 8:40 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Fri Apr 11, 9:45 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Martin Mares, (Fri Apr 11, 10:10 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 10:34 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 10:53 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 11:51 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 12:01 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Willy Tarreau, (Fri Apr 11, 12:25 pm)
Re: [regression] e1000e broke e1000, Willy Tarreau, (Fri Apr 11, 12:29 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Matthew Wilcox, (Fri Apr 11, 12:38 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 1:21 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Krzysztof Halasa, (Fri Apr 11, 1:22 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 1:29 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 3:06 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 3:21 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Fri Apr 11, 4:00 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 4:05 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Daniel Barkalow, (Fri Apr 11, 4:15 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Jeff Garzik, (Fri Apr 11, 4:43 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Christoph Hellwig, (Sat Apr 12, 6:07 am)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Linus Torvalds, (Sun Apr 13, 2:13 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ondrej Zary, (Sun Apr 13, 2:34 pm)
Re: [patch] e1000=y && e1000e=m regression fix, Ingo Molnar, (Mon Jun 9, 12:24 pm)