W dniu 18 maja 2011 02:28 uÅytkownik Julian Calaby <julian.calaby@xxxxxxxxx> napisaÅ: > RafaÅ, > > A quick question: > > 2011/5/18 RafaÅ MiÅecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx>: >> >> Signed-off-by: RafaÅ MiÅecki <zajec5@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Âdrivers/net/wireless/b43/Makefile |  Â1 + >> Âdrivers/net/wireless/b43/b43.h  Â|  Â4 +++- >> Âdrivers/net/wireless/b43/bus.c  Â|  36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Would it make more sense to have this be called ssb.c as it contains > all the ssb specific functions, It's only ssb specific for now. It will contain BCMA code later. > that way you can then have an brcma.c > file to contain the functions specific to that bus? I'll put BCMA specific code in bus.c. Right now bus.c contains 100 LOC* and I believe its SSB part is complete. All the ops functions are one liners. It's so small and simple file I don't see sense to splitting it and having more mess in list of files instead. A one quick question: Why didn't you respond in "[RFC][PATCH] b43: add bus abstraction layer" on 2011-04-08? Or more recent "[RFC ONLY 2/5] b43: add bus device abstraction later" posted on 2011-05-09? * 100 LOC without GPL header, but including /includes/ and empty lines. -- RafaÅ -- 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
