Hi All,
> > >> > All files name prefix removed due to the fact that wl12xx driver
> supports
> > >> > wl1271 and wl1273.
> > >> > Also the definition in Kconfig and header files changed
> respectively.
> > >> >
> > >> > Signed-off-by: Shahar Levi <shahar_levi@xxxxxx>
> > >>
> > >> Hmh the name 'wl12xx' kind of implies it covers 1251, while in
> fact
> > >> wl1251 is completely separate driver.. At least the Kconfig help
> text
> > >> should mention it doesn't cover wl1251 and users should use
> respective
> > >> driver for wl1251.
> > >
> > > That's a good point. We have discussed this before and this was
> the
> > > best solution we found. The wl12xx driver includes support for
> wl1271
> > > and wl1273, so we considered calling it wl127x, but in the near
> future,
> > > we'll have support for wl1281 and wl1283 as well. So we have to
> use
> > > wl12xx.
> > >
> > > At least in my opinion, it is kind of clear that if there is a
> separate
> > > driver for wl1251, the user would use that one. In any case, A
> note in
> > > the Kconfig help text would definitely not hurt.
> > >
> > > Shahar, could you please change the text in the Kconfig so that it
> reads
> > > something like this?
> > >
> > > "This module adds support for wireless adapters based on TI wl1271
> and
> > > TI wl1273 chipsets. This module does *not* include support for
> wl1251.
> > > For wl1251 support, use the separate homonymous driver instead."
> >
> > What about wl1251 vs. wl12agn (or wl12bgn if no .11a support), like
> iwlwifi?
>
> Hmmm... wl1251 supports bg. wl12xx supports abgn. I don't really see
> the logic in this? What difference does it make comparing to calling it
> wl12xx? From wl12agn the user still doesn't know whether wl1251 is
> supported or not.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Luca.
>
I have another idea for naming convention here.
But first to align everyone on the TI chip conventions:
12x1 == support for 2.4Ghz
12x3 == supports both 2.4Ghz and 5.0Ghz.
The TI project naming convention per chip is as follow:
wilink4 == 1251 and 1253
wilink6 == 1271 and 1273
wilink7 == 1281 and 1281
So I propose to use the project name instead of using the chip name.
e.g.:
for wl125x we can use: wl4 or wilink4. If we want to imply the band support: wl4_abg and wl4_bg
for wl127x we can use: wl6 or wilink6. If we want to imply the band and capability support: wl6_abgn and wl4_bgn
etc'
What say?
Cheers,
Benzy Gabay
Texas Instruments
ÿô.nlj·Ÿ®‰†+%ŠË±é¥Šwÿº{.nlj·¥Š{±ÿ«zW¬³ø¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚj:+v‰¨þø®w¥þŠàÞ¨è&¢)ß«a¶Úÿûz¹ÞúŽŠÝjÿŠwèf
