Re: pull request: wireless-next-2.6 2010-09-21

[Christian Lamparter <chunkeey@googlemail.com>]

On Wednesday 22 September 2010 12:34:35 Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 12:27 +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 September 2010 12:01:17 Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-09-22 at 11:58 +0200, Christian Lamparter wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday 22 September 2010 03:36:14 David Miller wrote:
> > > > > From: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
> > > > > Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 16:17:05 -0400
> > > > > 
> > > > > Pulled, but I suspect the 'packed' attribute usage is wrong in
> > > > > ath/carl9170 and can just be deleted.
> > > > 
> > > > which __packed do you think can be removed?
> > > 
> > > Well, there are bitfields in packed structs, which is either completely
> > > wrong (think endianness ... never use them to interface with something
> > > outside your own CPU), or needn't be packed.
> >
> > the header files (eeprom.h, wlan.h, hw.h, version.h, phy.h, fwcmd.h, fwdesc.h)
> > are shared with the firmware, firmware tools and the userspace testbench.
* (and of course the driver)

> Oh, ok, so it is indeed used only on the firmware. But then why does it
> need packing? Or is it some interface with the hardware?
yes, the 64-bit hardware descriptor might be one reason.
The other is that I don't want to hit the 320-byte boundary
for standard 1500 octet frames.

(and we get a free out-of-boundary check too.)

Regards,
	Chr