Re: dmfe/tulip kernel module poll

[David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>]

From: Brian Thompson <brian@eng.wayne.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:25:48 -0400

> 
> 
> David Miller wrote:
> > From: Josip Rodin <joy@entuzijast.net>
> > Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:49:11 +0100
> >
> >   
> >> I'm just Cc:'ing this to the sparc kernel mailing list...
> >>
> >> On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 08:21:56PM -0500, Brian Thompson wrote:
> >>     
> >>> I'd like to get some feedback as to whether anyone is actually using
> >>> the dmfe Davicom kernel module on sparc for 10/100 ethernet.
> >>>
> >>> To the best of my knowledge, Sun never manufactured any
> >>> expansion cards that utilize the Davicom chip and the UltraAX-i2
> >>> motherboard (Netra X1 and Sunfire V100) is the only Sun
> >>> motherboard that uses the chip. That particular motherboard
> >>> uses the tulip kernel module though, not the dmfe kernel module.
> >>>
> >>> Since the PCI ID of the UltraAX-i2's onboard ethernet
> >>> (1282:9102 - Davicom 9102) matches up with both the dmfe
> >>> module and the tulip module, both modules attempt to load and
> >>> end up causing the network interface to malfunction.
> >>>
> >>> My question is - is anyone actually using the dmfe kernel module
> >>> on sparc and/or would it be ok to set the default to not build the
> >>> dmfe kernel module on sparc?
> >>>
> >>> I presume that the only scenario where anyone would actually be
> >>> using the dmfe kernel module on sparc would be if they've installed
> >>> a PCI NIC originally intended for x86 machines into their sparc
> >>> machine.
> >>>       
> >
> > Better would be to simply remove the conflicting device IDs
> > from the dmfe driver.
> >
> >   
> Something like the following in dmfe.c? I can test it if it makes sense to do so.

I mean unconditionally, if all of the IDs are covered by tulip we
should delete the dmfe driver.