On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Jason King <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:52 PM, Garrett D'Amore > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Steven Stallion wrote: > > > Garrett D'Amore wrote: > > >> IMO, plenty of value. Though the number of new drivers that could > > >> take advantage of it is probably not too great -- not too many new > > >> 100M/1G chips are entering the market now -- everything seems to be > > >> focused on 10G for new development. > > > > > > Sounds like a plan. > > > > > > At a higher level, would it make sense to have specific modules for > > > MII, GMII, (and possibly) XGMII? My gut instinct is to lump everything > > > into a single 'mii' module capable of handling any of the above, > > > especially since GMII (unsure about XGMII) can fall back to MII > behavior. > > > > I'm not sure about XGMII either. It sounds like XGMII might be harder > > to integrate. > > > > But what about sticking this in the mac_ether module, for GLDv3 > > drivers? That seems like a logical place to locate common > > ethernet-specific functionality. To me at least. :-) > > I was thinking about that myself, but wasn't sure how to make it fit. > > It would seem though that beyond what the current x86, 10/100 only mii > code does, that it should also be able to handle the set/getprop + > legacy ndd set/get for the mii parameters. >
Agreed. mac_ether does look like a good place to add this in. Garrett, what paperwork needs to be done to start work on modifying mac_ether? Is a PSARC required? I would assume at a minimum a new Bug ID should be created. Steve _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list networking-discuss@opensolaris.org
