On 19 March 2015 at 10:32, Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >>> When I was adding WMI_OP_VERSION, my idea was that we will add similar >>> version for HTT as well once we need it. But I guess this is good enough >>> for now, we can add HTT_OP_VERSION later if more changes are needed. >> >> Maybe it should be renamed to OP_VERSION (drop the WMI_) or BRANCH_ID >> or something else? >> >> It's not like HTT wasn't diverging. It was. However only WMI ABI was >> seeing major breakage that needed taking care of. HTT changes were >> small enough and could be ignored until now. > > I'm a bit worried that having one id for everything will be more > difficult to maintain, that's why I created WMI_OP_VERSION in the first > place. IMHO it's lot cleaner codewise to have one id for WMI interface > and one id for HTT (eg. HTT_OP_VERSION). What do you think? Currently both WMI and HTT seem to be developed in tandem within their own branches. HTT_OP_VERSION would make sense if you assume HTT/WMI development will be developed in parallel branches. Would that even make sense from _any_ perspective? Current branching model seems to be based on per-purpose branching and isolation. The thinking behind this might be this allows better parallelization of efforts between teams and tasks. If my assertion is correct then both master-be-all branching and independent WMI/HTT branching stands in conflict with the per-purpose branch isolation so a single OP_VERSION/BRANCH_ID should suffice for ath10k. With this htt conflict patch WMI_OP_VERSION is already being treated as OP_VERSION effectively (and thus change the meaning of it). Would it be much of a problem to re-rename OP_VERSION and introduce HTT_OP_VERSION later? Hmm.. Michał -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
