On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:38:56PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Wednesday 29 November 2006 16:24, David Kimdon wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 04:12:33PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: > > > On Wednesday 29 November 2006 15:34, Nick Kossifidis wrote: > > Why do you say that? > > > > There is absolutely no reason why dadwifi can't be merged into the > > mainline once the hal issue is resolved. > > Last time we talked about that stuff, it was decided that > we don't want a HAL... See archives.
To be clear, that is all part of the hal issue that needs to be resolved. Removing the hal abstraction is not difficult for an interested party once source for the hal is available. The next step in such an effort would be to add an open hal to dadwifi, IMO. -David P.S. Actually, it isn't clear to me that removing the hal entirely is a good idea. Abstractions exist for practical reasons. The hal allows dadwifi to support a variety of Atheros chips without needing to worry about the specific details of each chip. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
