On Wed, 20 Jan 2021 20:34:51 +0100 Andrew Lunn wrote: > On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 06:26:54PM +0100, Bjørn Mork wrote: > > I was young and stupid. Now I'm not that young anymore ;-) > > We all make mistakes, when we don't have the knowledge there are other > ways. That is partially what code review is about. > > > Never ever imagined that this would be replicated in another driver, > > though. That doesn't really make much sense. We have learned by now, > > haven't we? This subject has been discussed a few times in the past, > > and Johannes summary is my understanding as well: > > "I don't think anyone likes that" > > So there seems to be agreement there. But what is not clear, is > anybody willing to do the work to fix this, and is there enough ROI. > > Do we expect more devices like this? Will 6G, 7G modems look very > different? Didn't Intel sell its 5G stuff off to Apple? > Be real network devices and not need any of this odd stuff? > Or will they be just be incrementally better but mostly the same? > > I went into the review thinking it was an Ethernet driver, and kept > having WTF moments. Now i know it is not an Ethernet driver, i can say > it is not my domain, i don't know the field well enough to say if all > these hacks are acceptable or not. > > It probably needs David and Jakub to set the direction to be followed. AFAIU all those cellar modems are relatively slow and FW-heavy, so the ideal solution IMO is not even a common kernel interface but actually a common device interface, like NVMe (or virtio for lack of better examples).
