Re: [Bcm43xx-dev] Broadcom 43xx first results

[Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 01:52:21PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> In general, Jouni's points are good, as are Michael's.
> 
> The key question is about the size of the SoftMAC code.  If its huge, an 
> ieee80211 sub-module makes sense.  If it's not, then adding the code to 
> net/ieee80211 makes a lot more sense.
> 
> Certainly some chips will use more ieee80211 code than others.  This is 
> no different than ethernet NICs:  some make use of TSO and checksum 
> offload code included in every kernel, while for other NICs the kernel 
> TSO/csum code is just dead weight.
> 
> In general, adding directly to net/ieee80211 is preferred, UNLESS there 
> are overriding reasons not to do so (such as a huge size increase).

I tend to disagree a bit here.  If it can be separate without making the
API more complicated a separate module is nicer, if the API would get nasty
integerating it is better.  And nevermind whether it's a separate module or
not it should live in net/ieee80211/ ;-)

In either case ?I think this decision is better left until the code is in
an almost mergeable shape, because then the details will be clear.