Benzy,
> > Doesn't help much. The problem is that the driver which is now called
> > wl12xx already support wl1271 and wl1273. In the near future, it will
> > also support wl1281 and wl1283, so the wl6 or wilink6 scheme would
> > break
> > already.
> >
> > The wl1251 driver, at least at the moment, only supports wl1251, it
> > doesn't have the 11a implementation. If in the future someone adds
> > support for wl1253, it could be renamed to wl125x.
> >
> > In any case, I think the name of the driver is not that important, as
> > long as we're clear about which chips each one of them supports in the
> > Kconfig description.
> >
> > Renaming the driver all the time (we already did it twice), ends up
> > confusing more than clarifying things.
> >
> > --
> > Cheers,
> > Luca.
>
> mmm...
>
> In that case, another idea:
> 1. why not create new driver source code which will designated for 128x.
> 2. If we have a problem with unified 12xx then lets dived it completely to sub drivers and
> have only common part as a unified driver. That way you get to keep the old names and
> just divide the files content to a new file name wl12xx.c.
>
> e.g:
> wl1251.c wl1253.c common part
> wl1271.c wl1273.c ----------> wl12xx.c
> wl1281.c wl1283.c
>
I agree with Luca here. The names have been changed recently and anyway represent both chipsets (127x and 128x) in a way that makes sense. I don't think we should make any changes to that.
Also re-writing the driver into a new partitioning does not serve any special need IMO. Especially since wilink6 and wilink7 share the same driver essentially.
Regards,
Oz.
ÿô.nlj·Ÿ®‰†+%ŠË±é¥Šwÿº{.nlj·¥Š{±ÿ«zW¬³ø¡Ü}©ž²ÆzÚj:+v‰¨þø®w¥þŠàÞ¨è&¢)ß«a¶Úÿûz¹ÞúŽŠÝjÿŠwèf
