From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f207.google.com ([209.85.219.207]:41521 "EHLO mail-ew0-f207.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752642AbZJTQbL (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:31:11 -0400 From: Ivo van Doorn To: Holger Schurig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rt2x00: Implement support for rt2800pci Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:31:11 +0200 Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , John Linville , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, users@rt2x00.serialmonkey.com, Alban Browaeys , Benoit PAPILLAULT , Felix Fietkau , Luis Correia , Mattias Nissler , Mark Asselstine , Xose Vazquez Perez , "linux-kernel" References: <200910152137.58164.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200910181859.22413.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200910200858.54683.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> In-Reply-To: <200910200858.54683.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Message-Id: <200910201831.12285.IvDoorn@gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tuesday 20 October 2009, Holger Schurig wrote: > > I don't agree on this, for starters the whole "abstraction > > layer as done in the staging driver, really obfuscated the code > > in multiple areas > > Ivo, you could look at Orinoco or Libertas. Both WLAN drivers > support a multitude of different hardware (Libertas: CF/PCMCIA, > SDIO, SD, USB and Orinoco: CF/PCMCIA, PCI, PPC_PMAC). And both > have hardware abstraction layers that don't suck, obfuscate or > create lots of duplicate code. Thanks, > So AFAIK it's not the question *IF* to do hardware abstraction > but only a question *HOW* to do it in an intelligent way. Don't > luck at one bad implementation and disregard the whole > concept :-) Oh I completely agree, I am not against the extra abstraction layer, but I do want a nice looking solution. :) I'll take a look at the Orinoco approach. Thanks, Ivo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752713AbZJTQbN (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:31:13 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752639AbZJTQbM (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:31:12 -0400 Received: from mail-ew0-f207.google.com ([209.85.219.207]:41521 "EHLO mail-ew0-f207.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752642AbZJTQbL (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:31:11 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=from:to:subject:date:user-agent:cc:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:message-id; b=pcDxsKySjyWEzeSdbVKIEQAB1YCwFAkKkezZJRZTci8oDhOPWcPzOrBMuSrfEFFJYp 0WaakKOdKb5lcUmpDjIj0fX7iSPwPQ+a3AH8jhnkVCzpKQ7nUVoofX4cvDuzIjMYDQhO VSpKC5aX1WR/KxHoJKFxgU6LdafwsiftUVyy4= From: Ivo van Doorn To: Holger Schurig Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] rt2x00: Implement support for rt2800pci Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:31:11 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz , John Linville , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, users@host1.serialmonkey.com, Alban Browaeys , Benoit PAPILLAULT , Felix Fietkau , Luis Correia , Mattias Nissler , Mark Asselstine , Xose Vazquez Perez , "linux-kernel" References: <200910152137.58164.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200910181859.22413.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200910200858.54683.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> In-Reply-To: <200910200858.54683.hs4233@mail.mn-solutions.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200910201831.12285.IvDoorn@gmail.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 20 October 2009, Holger Schurig wrote: > > I don't agree on this, for starters the whole "abstraction > > layer as done in the staging driver, really obfuscated the code > > in multiple areas > > Ivo, you could look at Orinoco or Libertas. Both WLAN drivers > support a multitude of different hardware (Libertas: CF/PCMCIA, > SDIO, SD, USB and Orinoco: CF/PCMCIA, PCI, PPC_PMAC). And both > have hardware abstraction layers that don't suck, obfuscate or > create lots of duplicate code. Thanks, > So AFAIK it's not the question *IF* to do hardware abstraction > but only a question *HOW* to do it in an intelligent way. Don't > luck at one bad implementation and disregard the whole > concept :-) Oh I completely agree, I am not against the extra abstraction layer, but I do want a nice looking solution. :) I'll take a look at the Orinoco approach. Thanks, Ivo