On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:03:28 -0800
David Kimdon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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.
>
Isn't it obvious. Planning from goal through intermediate steps gives:
0 - today (raw materials)
* softmac stack: d80211
* open hal: ar5k
* glue layer: dadwifi
1- put pieces together
* d80211 + dadwifi + ar5k
2 - release working code to d80211 tree
3 - hard link dad2ifi to ar5k (one module)
4 - collapse indirect calls and refactor
5 - lather rinse repeat in public d80211 tree
...
8 - resulting in atheros driver kernel module
9 - code ready in d80211
10 - mainline integration of working driver for Atheros
using common softmac stack
>
> 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.
Abstractions that deal with hardware are good. See phylib.
Abstractions that try to deal with operating system independence are
gross.
--
Stephen Hemminger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
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
