Alan DuBoff wrote: > On Thursday 19 October 2006 08:58 am, Garrett D'Amore wrote: > >> In the case of afe, the driver is similar to dnet in any respects. >> However nearly all tulip chips have significant differences in a few areas: >> > > Garrett, > > One thing I'm unclear on is if there is overlap between afe and dnet? Is that > the case? >
There is not overlap in what devices are supported. I.e. no device that is supported by dnet now will be supported by afe. > That could complicate things, possibly, unless we issolate the dnet devices > out from afe. I don't think we can just get rid of dnet. > > No, I don't think so either, although, frankly, I think someone should initiate a process to EOF dnet. Devices with actual Tulip chips in them are pretty rare now days, as DEC (now Intel) long ago stopped shipping these parts. The dnet driver is one really, really ugly driver (it was originally a GLD version 0 driver), and losing it in the long term would probably be a good thing. But, that should be handled totally separately, and that is just my opinion. -- Garrett D'Amore, Principal Software Engineer Tadpole Computer / Computing Technologies Division, General Dynamics C4 Systems http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/ Phone: 951 325-2134 Fax: 951 325-2191
