On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:49 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > As far as I understand, the point is that it's no longer a 'solution' > at the core, i.e. there is no replacement for hci_ldisc or any > of these, just modules for the additional h4 protocols that don't > have a linux implementation yet. > > The patch set that was originally posted here had a new framework, > but after the comments from Alan and me, Par-Gunnar agreed to use > the existing framework instead and extend it in a useful way. > Please read all of the discussion we already had. You made a good > point here, but I fear you had both Par-Gunnar and me confused > because it was a point that already got resolved. Yeah I've read through that thread but the only conclusion I'd been able to make was that you agreed on not introducing yet another line discipline. I'm not sure if I could make a conclusion that Par gave up on his attempt to make his patchset generic/extensible/reusable for other chips of similar type. But if that's really the case, I see no point in this patchset at all, as opposed to generalizing the TI shared transport thingie and using that one. Thanks, Vitaly -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
