From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:47451 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750996Ab1ERHVd convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 May 2011 03:21:33 -0400 Received: by iwn34 with SMTP id 34so1074747iwn.19 for ; Wed, 18 May 2011 00:21:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <1305677203-16660-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <1305677203-16660-2-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> From: Julian Calaby Date: Wed, 18 May 2011 17:21:13 +1000 Message-ID: (sfid-20110518_092137_287036_4CD2FB1D) Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] b43: add bus device abstraction layer To: =?ISO-8859-2?Q?Rafa=B3_Mi=B3ecki?= Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , b43-dev@lists.infradead.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-2 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2011/5/18 Rafał Miłecki : > W dniu 18 maja 2011 02:28 użytkownik Julian Calaby > napisał: >> Rafał, >> >> A quick question: >> >> 2011/5/18 Rafał Miłecki : >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki >>> --- >>>  drivers/net/wireless/b43/Makefile |    1 + >>>  drivers/net/wireless/b43/b43.h    |    4 +++- >>>  drivers/net/wireless/b43/bus.c    |   36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Would it make more sense to have this be called ssb.c as it contains >> all the ssb specific functions, > > It's only ssb specific for now. It will contain BCMA code later. > > >> that way you can then have an brcma.c >> file to contain the functions specific to that bus? > > I'll put BCMA specific code in bus.c. > Right now bus.c contains 100 LOC* and I believe its SSB part is > complete. All the ops functions are one liners. It's so small and > simple file I don't see sense to splitting it and having more mess in > list of files instead. As I see it, having two sets of mostly identical wrapper functions in a file seems incorrect to me. Especially as once the abstraction is complete it would technically be correct to build b43 without SSB support - it's much cleaner to not compile a file than have a massive #ifdef block in a common file. Anyway, it's only a minor thing. > A one quick question: > Why didn't you respond in "[RFC][PATCH] b43: add bus abstraction > layer" on 2011-04-08? Or more recent "[RFC ONLY 2/5] b43: add bus > device abstraction later" posted on 2011-05-09? While I try to read every patch that passes through the linux-wireless mailing list, I only skim them, and tend to miss some details. The thing that prompted this comment was the SSB comment at the start of the SSB specific wrappers - something I probably didn't read the last two times the patch came up on the list. Thanks, -- Julian Calaby Email: julian.calaby@gmail.com Profile: http://www.google.com/profiles/julian.calaby/ .Plan: http://sites.google.com/site/juliancalaby/