From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Broadcom 43xx first results
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 18:45:05 -0500
Message-ID: <43962281.2050707@pobox.com>
References: <4394902C.8060100@pobox.com>	<20051205195329.GB19964@redhat.com>	<20051206151046.GF4038@rama.exocore.com> <20051206.151919.72043193.davem@davemloft.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: laforge@gnumonks.org, davej@redhat.com, jbenc@suse.cz,
	josejx@gentoo.org, mbuesch@freenet.de,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1030309AbVLFXp0@vger.kernel.org>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <20051206.151919.72043193.davem@davemloft.net>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org

David S. Miller wrote:
> I'm at the point where I frankly don't care which softmac
> implementation we go with, but rather I'm more concerned that we pick
> _ONE_ and just stick with it, and then adding the necessary interfaces
> and infrastructure as different wireless devices require.
> 
> Yes, you hear me right, it's more important to agree to one
> implementation as the basis, even if it's the worst one currently.
> Division of labor is something we simply cannot afford on the wireless
> stack at this time.

Agreed.

	Jeff