On Tue, 2011-08-16 at 02:26 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 08:29:12AM -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 08:12 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I don't really see any issues with it > > It make driver more complex than it could be. > > > and I don't believe it will cause > > problem if we do it right. by doing so, we will improve the flexibility. > > It does not offer any more flexibility than sharing iwl_priv, it > is actually less flexible. > how so, different upper layer can have differ private structure, just has to include shrd which is shared with lower layer > > > > > > 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? > > > > > > > it is pure iwlagn driver changes and not impact mac80211 at all. > > Johannes already in the loop and he understand the changes. > > I'm asking about Johannes opinion, not your opinion about his opinion :-) > but I am not seeing any relation those patches related to mac80211 Wey -- 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
