From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932309AbWG3NBZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:01:25 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932311AbWG3NBZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:01:25 -0400 Received: from pfepc.post.tele.dk ([195.41.46.237]:47565 "EHLO pfepc.post.tele.dk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932309AbWG3NBY (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 09:01:24 -0400 Subject: Re: ipw3945 status From: Kasper Sandberg To: Matthew Garrett Cc: Jan Dittmer , Pavel Machek , Jirka Lenost Benc , kernel list , ipw2100-admin@linux.intel.com In-Reply-To: <20060730114722.GA26046@srcf.ucam.org> References: <20060730104042.GE1920@elf.ucw.cz> <20060730112827.GA25540@srcf.ucam.org> <44CC993B.6070309@l4x.org> <20060730114722.GA26046@srcf.ucam.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 15:01:17 +0200 Message-Id: <1154264478.13635.22.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 12:47 +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2006 at 01:34:19PM +0200, Jan Dittmer wrote: > > > Why not get rid of the daemon like bsd did [0]? Otherwise in > > 5 years you'll have 42 daemons running which communicate with > > the firmware of various devices, each having a different inter- > > face. > > Because it would involve a moderate rewriting of the driver, and we'd > have to carry a delta against Intel's code forever. without knowing this for sure, dont you think that if a largely changed version of the driver appeared in the tree, intel may start developing on that? cause then they wouldnt be the ones that "broke" compliance with FCC(hah) by not doing binaryonly. >