> * Jérémie Courrèges-Anglas <jca@wxcvbn.org> [2014-09-14 23:18]:
> > Chris Cappuccio <chris@nmedia.net> writes:
> > > Stuart Henderson [sthen@openbsd.org] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I don't think the driver manuals can sensibly go into enough detail
> > > > in many cases, with some NICs there are differences between revisions,
> > > > some drivers cover a huge range of adapters, etc.
> > >
> > > It might be nice to get maximum MTUs for various chip revisions stated
> > > in their respective man pages.
> >
> > Yes but this needs work - even more work if an audit of all drivers
> > "gets" done to make all manpages accurate. I'll shut up about this
> > since it looks like a big task in my eyes.
>
> A too big task when you add the maintainance.
>
> We've tried this before in other occasions, we cannot document
> hardware quirks/features reasonably in our documentation for
> widespread, pretty generic hardware - we just have no chance to keep
> it in sync with reality.
>
> jca/chris, if you're so much after it, I propose you start a webpage
> somewhere collecting and maintaining that information. If it is still
> accurate in a couple of years we can have this duscussion again :)

it might be reasonable to document which drivers (not chips) have support for jumbos. \
for the drivers for chips with stupid variations between silicon revisions, we should \
refer the user to the vendor datasheets as brad suggests, and ifconfig if0 hwfeatures \
output as the final authoritative source of information.

dlg