On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:50:34AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:35 AM, John W. > Linville<linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 11:02:35AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 08:01:38AM -0700, John W. Linville wrote: > > > >> > I'm sorry, I know you've put some effort into this. A lot of it seems > >> > fine, even welcome. But I don't really see the point of grouping > >> > everything by manufacturer -- it just seems to add an extra level of > >> > organization for no particular reason...? > >> > >> Well at first I didn't really intend to group them by manufacturer really, > >> I just tried to get rid of clutter and wanted to group related drivers > >> together to make it easier to find for users. After a few iterations the > >> manufacturer grouping just happened naturally, and later it also just seemed > >> natural to remove the typical postfix "wireless device support" or the like. > >> > >> I welcome others to try to clean the stuff up some more in a different > >> way but I think you may end up with something very similar. > > > > Can we just drop the "INTEL_80211" and the like, keeping the comments > > and basic organization in the Kconfig files as you have them? > > Well so to group all of Intel stuff we do need this, at least I can't > think of a way to do it. If we don't want to group intel stuff then we > can remove it. Is there a downside to this grouping, for example? Is there an upside to it? Putting them side-by-side in Kconfig is fine, but do people really want to (de-)select Intel drivers as a group? -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- 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
