[Top] [All Lists]

Re: RFC: Network Device Driver Group proposal

To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@xxxxxxxx>, "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@xxxxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: RFC: Network Device Driver Group proposal
From: Francois Romieu <romieu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2004 23:17:32 +0200
In-reply-to: <20040524194117.GW3330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Mon, May 24, 2004 at 03:41:17PM -0400
References: <20040524084945.GP3330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040524113919.3651c453@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040524194117.GW3330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/
Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> :
> on drivers. Basically I feel we are doing great but we're lacking that
> *corporate* entity any commercial operating system has. Who do
> manufacturers seek out to provide/sell source base/NDA's to so that a
> driver can be written for our OS? No one... On behalf of who does a
> kernel hacker send out an e-mail to a company requesting specs to write
> a driver? The DRI/Xfree86 project have an advantage because of this -- 
> they represent a group who has done tons of great work and companies 
> tend to trust groups more than individuals. Of course, many companies

May I suggest the following thread on dri-devel:

From: Dax Kelson <dax@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 15:32:13 -0600
Subject: [Dri-devel] Docs for R300/350 now R420 chips out?

I enjoy working on drivers for which the datasheets are publically
available. I do not buy your "corporate" model at all.

> Having a central place for network drivers would be nice for bugtracking + google + testers harassment.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>