Re: [Madwifi-devel] ANNOUNCE: SFLC helps developers assess ar5k (enabling free Atheros HAL)

[Pavel Roskin <proski@gnu.org>]

Hello!

On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 14:21 -0500, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 07:42:14PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> 
> > Now that it seems to be ok to use these openbsd sources, should I port
> > them to my driver framework?
> > I looked over the ar5k code and, well, I don't like it. ;)
> > I don't really like having a HAL. I'd rather prefer a "real" driver
> > without that HAL obfuscation.
> 
> I don't think anyone likes the HAL-based architecture.  I don't think
> we will accept a HAL-based driver into the upstream kernel.

I said it before, and it's worth repeating.  Dissolving HAL in the
sources is easy.  It's just a matter of moving functions around without
serious chances of breaking anything as long as the source compiles.
The whole "HAL-based architecture" can be reshuffled and eliminated by
one person in a few days.

Making things work properly takes years.  That's what MadWifi has been
working on for a long time, using contributions and bug reports from
scores of users and developers.

Rejecting MadWifi because it's HAL based is like throwing away a diamond
ring because it's too narrow.

-- 
Regards,
Pavel Roskin