Search Linux Wireless

Re: [PATCH 05/60] iwlagn: introduce struct iwl-shared - known by all layers

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 07:10:22AM -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 07:44 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:46:45AM -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 07:21 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:13:39AM -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote:
> > > > > now we are working on separate iwlagn driver into two layers (upper and
> > > > > lower), the lower layer contains both bus and transport sub-layer which
> > > > > is hw dependent, and the upper layer should be bus/hw independent. by
> > > > > doing so, the single driver can handle different bus and different core
> > > > > architecture. Having the share data structure (priv->shrd->foo) between
> > > > > two layers is for that reason (loosely couple).
> > > > 
> > > > You did not explained reason for introducing iwl_shared structure,
> > > > actually you confirmed it is useless. You should simply share iwl_priv
> > > > on any layer you have.
> > > > 
> > > > Stanislaw
> > > 
> > > It is not true, I mean "boring" but not "useless", it does not make
> > > sense share all the priv with lower layer.
> > 
> > Why? Even if there are some fields that you will use only on
> > upper layer, it does not mean that pointer to priv structure
> > could not be passed to lower layer.
> > 
> why, if we doing that, lower layer need to know how to reference the
> priv which I don't believe it is a good design. I want to make the upper
> and lower layer as loose as possible and it is flexible for new
> architecture.

Providing more abstraction layers than needed is worse.

> > > think about I also mention
> > > different core architecture, that mean we can have different upper layer
> > > which has different priv; but shrd is always common to all different
> > > upper layer to share with lower layer.
> > 
> > What different upper layer? Non mac80211, if so you should write
> > separate driver for it.
> 
> not mac80211, it is still part of driver, but different upper layer
> might/can contain different system flow. that is why I mention different
> core architecture. now we are doing preparation work so you did not see
> the new stuff yet.

Can we get opinion from Johannes about that, and eventually ACKs/NACKs
for patches?

Stanislaw

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]
  Powered by Linux