<div>On 22/03/07, Dave Jones <<a href="mailto:davej@redhat.com">davej@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:15:32AM -0400, Chuck Ebbert wrote: > What are we supposed to do when this kind of thing happens? It appears that > multiple drivers claim to support the same hardware. Grr, this happens far too often. We have the same with for eg, orinoco and hostap right now. The usual deal is that we either just build the 'best' driver for that hardware, or if there's a case where both drivers support the same hardware _and_ some hardware unique to them, we nobble the pci table so that the crappier driver doesn't load on that hardware. As to which is the best one in this case.. I really don't know. Or maybe this is a situation where it's valid to have both drivers loaded? We don't actually support that right now, but patches went to linux-pci list last week that should be showing up in GregKHs tree adding an alternative method for drivers to bind to a device in situations where it's possible for two drivers to drive different parts of the same chip. (This case has been showing up more and more recently too.. agp vs edac, matroxfb vs lm_sensors,..)</blockquote><div> Taking a look at: <a href="http://lwn.net/Articles/212535/" target="_blank" onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)">http://lwn.net/Articles/212535/</a> which may be able to shed some light on the changes. Even with the blackbird driver blacklisted, the v4l2 loads but the dvb driver does not. It should be noted that the two co-exist peacefully when loaded but something is preventing the latter from loading - perhaps because the kernel "sees" the driver requirements as being satisfied by the v4l2 module? In any case, in this instance it is just that the cx88-dvb driver is failing to load as opposed to anything more sinister. </div> </div>Cheers Chris -- <a href="http://www.chruz.com">http://www.chruz.com</a>