On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 11:01:09AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 02:04, Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, May 05, 2021 at 12:12:15AM +0200, Tobias Waldekranz wrote: > >> > and you create a dependency between the tagger and the switch driver > >> > which was supposed by design to not exist. > >> > >> Sure, but _why_ should it not exist? Many fields in the tag can only be > >> correctly generated/interpreted in combination with knowledge of the > >> current configuration, which is the driver's domain. The dependency is > >> already there, etched in silicon. > > > > I'm a bit more of a pragmatic person, > > Excuse me sir, I believe you left your dagger IN MY HEART :) You might have misinterpreted my words, I did not mean to say "look what a good quality I have and you don't", in fact I don't view pragmatism as much of a desirable quality at all. What I meant to say in the context is that, even though in general I value functionality more than how it is implemented, I would still like to keep the separation between taggers and switch drivers at least at the most basic RX/TX level, for the reasons explained.
