From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-ew0-f228.google.com ([209.85.219.228]:48534 "EHLO mail-ew0-f228.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758796AbZKFSWU (ORCPT ); Fri, 6 Nov 2009 13:22:20 -0500 From: Ivo van Doorn To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Subject: Re: [PATCH 23/41] rt2x00: add driver private field to struct rt2x00_dev Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 19:22:20 +0100 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Gertjan van Wingerde , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" References: <20091104173151.28463.68742.sendpatchset@localhost.localdomain> <200911051957.06276.IvDoorn@gmail.com> <200911061727.50118.bzolnier@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200911061727.50118.bzolnier@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Message-Id: <200911061922.20749.IvDoorn@gmail.com> Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Friday 06 November 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Thursday 05 November 2009 19:57:05 Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > On Thursday 05 November 2009, Ivo van Doorn wrote: > > > On Wednesday 04 November 2009, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > > > From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > > > > Subject: [PATCH] rt2x00: add driver private field to struct rt2x00_dev > > > > > > > > Enhance rt2x00 infrastructure by adding driver specific field to > > > > struct rt2x00_dev. > > > > > > > > The new field will be used by rt2800 drivers for chipset registers > > > > access abstraction layer. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz > > > > > > Acked-by: Ivo van Doorn > > > > Sorry I have a better idea, please the pointer into struct rt2x00_ops, > > that way you can assign it statically like the rest of that structure. > > That makes actually sense since all other function ops structures > > are assigned like that as well. > > I thought about doing it this way initially but since: > > - rt2800_ops are used by rt2800 drivers only and rt2x00dev->priv can be > reused by other drivers for different purposes > > - I couldn't come up with the good name for new rt2x00_ops field :) > > I decided on the more flexible IMO for the whole rt2x00 stack solution > (however there is some minor difference between them that it can be > changed if you feel strongly about it). Ok, keep it as it is now. Ivo