Hi, > 2011/2/10 Michael BÃsch <mb@xxxxxxxxx>: > > You're actually abusing the ops structure. The ops structure is meant > > to abstract the SSB backplane from its host bus. It is _not_ meant > > to abstract the SSB backplane itself. Your patches mix that up. It's > > an abstraction layer violation, which my proposal avoids completely. > > After some reading, learning, I think I generally agree with Michael. > > George: I like you consider separated bus driver now. Please let us > know when you design something! > I've tried-out separate bus driver approach already. Didn't like it at all tbh. Separate bus driver's .c files made me copy-paste main.c and scan.c alot any modifications except for &ops pointers. If inlining AI things with include "bcmai_main.c" "bcmai_scan.c" into main.c/scan.c makes less copy-pasting and original SSB handlers' exporting but again changing just &ops in respective handlers makes no sense for me. Therefore I still think AI-layer buildup over SSB will be good if not best. Unfortunately my original code put too much messup into SSB with overriding ops which was plain wrong as I see now. I've done with fixed decision which keep bus-abstraction layer intact, overriding just helpers which behaving different for SSB and AI. Currently its ready to publish but I want to test it on actual hw before. Already tested on pci attached SSB on and few embeddables with both SSB and AI. Atm looking for some pci attached AI to test updated AI code. Have nice day, George -- 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
