[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Linux Drivers, The Kernel, and a Driver List



On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 08:47:05PM -0500, Grok Mogger wrote:
> Hey everyone,
> 
> If the default kernel that comes with Debian has all these built 
> in drivers and modules, then shouldn't there be some way to just 
> get a list of every supported device?
> 
Nope.  However, with enough work, you can probably get a list of every
supported *chipset*.

> If I want to buy a new piece of hardware, and I want to figure 
> out if it's supported or not (BEFORE I buy it), then shouldn't 
> there be some way for me to just dig through my system and find 
> the appropriate driver to confirm that it's supported?
> 
More than likely that is not possible unless you know what chipset it
utilizes.

> This is just something that's puzzled me for a long time now. 
> If the kernel and its modules basically have all the drivers, 
> then why is it so hard to find a reliable list of supported and 
> unsupported hardware?  It's like we have this giant pot full of 
> junk, tons of people have thrown stuff into it, and no one knows 
> what's inside...
> 
> If anyone can clear up some of that for me, I'd appreciate it.
> 
The thing is that many hardware vendors either 1) use another vendor's
hardware and rebrand it, or 2) use another vendor's chipsets in their
own hardware to save design and manufacturing time and expense.  This is
complicated by the fact that with some manufacturers, FooWidget 150c
uses a chipset from company A and FooWidget 230e uses a chipset from
company B.  Some of the truly annoying problems crop up when you have
BarWidget 175t manufactured before some date using chipsets from company
C and BarWidget 175t manufactured *after* a certain date using chipsets
from company D, but there is no change in model number.

Hope this clears things up.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sanchez
http://people.connexer.com/~roberto
http://www.connexer.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Reply to: