From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Joao Pinto Subject: Re: Synopsys Ethernet QoS Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:54:00 +0000 Message-ID: References: <2df7a6dd-1128-d1d6-bf61-891f76cf7200@synopsys.com> <20161209.103327.1742213347114742435.davem@davemloft.net> <93b73b79-36aa-56b8-f975-b890b7a48bd1@synopsys.com> <20161209.104152.1969880574279771010.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: , , , , , To: David Miller , Return-path: Received: from us01smtprelay-2.synopsys.com ([198.182.60.111]:60972 "EHLO smtprelay.synopsys.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933614AbcLIPyF (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:54:05 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20161209.104152.1969880574279771010.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Ās 3:41 PM de 12/9/2016, David Miller escreveu: > From: Joao Pinto > Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2016 15:36:38 +0000 > >> Of course, I started a general discussion about the subject and >> those were the conclusions, but I would like to know if you as the >> subsystem maintainer also support the approach or have any >> suggestion. > > Generally, I support whatever the interested parties agree to. > > But one thing I am against is changing the driver name for existing > users. If an existing chip is supported by the stmmac driver for > existing users, they should still continue to use the "stmmac" driver. > > Therefore, if consolidation changes the driver module name for > existing users, then that is not a good plan at all. > Of course, 100% with you! Retro-compatibility for existing drivers is a must have. The consolidation is going to be done with extreme careful. Joao