From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Eliezer Tamir" Subject: Re: [PATCH][BNX2X] round three Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 19:53:39 +0200 Message-ID: <1192125219.29746.143.camel@eliezer> References: <1192038559.29746.127.camel@eliezer> <470D2D7E.8080507@broadcom.com> <20071010.175942.55509516.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, jeff@garzik.org, mchan@broadcom.com To: "David Miller" Return-path: Received: from mms3.broadcom.com ([216.31.210.19]:2879 "EHLO MMS3.broadcom.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755489AbXJKRw3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 13:52:29 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20071010.175942.55509516.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2007-10-10 at 17:59 -0700, David Miller wrote: ... > I was going to add this to the tree for 2.6.24 but there is simply > too much super-ugly stuff in this driver for me to do so. We will rewrite bnx2x_hsi.h bnx2x_init.h and bnx2x_init_vlaues.h. Does bnx2x_asm.h look OK? > Look, there is zero way I'm adding a driver that's written like this > to the tree. > ... > This huge header file full of register programming magic goes way > beyond the limits of "reasonable" and has to go. Will it be OK if we replace it with 4-5 headers so we can maintain them better manually. (I'm asking what is the upper bound to the number of header files you would consider reasonable for this driver.) Thanks Eliezer