[PATCH 2/9] b43: add bus device abstraction layer

[Rafał Miłecki]

W dniu 18 maja 2011 09:21 użytkownik Julian Calaby
<julian.calaby at gmail.com> napisał:
> 2011/5/18 Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com>:
>> W dniu 18 maja 2011 02:28 użytkownik Julian Calaby
>> <julian.calaby at gmail.com> napisał:
>>> Rafał,
>>>
>>> A quick question:
>>>
>>> 2011/5/18 Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Rafał Miłecki <zajec5 at gmail.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  drivers/net/wireless/b43/Makefile |    1 +
>>>>  drivers/net/wireless/b43/b43.h    |    4 +++-
>>>>  drivers/net/wireless/b43/bus.c    |   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.
>
> As I see it, having two sets of mostly identical  wrapper functions in
> a file seems incorrect to me. Especially as once the abstraction is
> complete it would technically be correct to build b43 without SSB
> support - it's much cleaner to not compile a file than have a massive
> #ifdef block in a common file.
>
> Anyway, it's only a minor thing.

Massive? It's *one* ifdef for one bus type in this file.


>> 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?
>
> While I try to read every patch that passes through the linux-wireless
> mailing list, I only skim them, and tend to miss some details. The
> thing that prompted this comment was the SSB comment at the start of
> the SSB specific wrappers - something I probably didn't read the last
> two times the patch came up on the list.

OK, I ask because it's much easier to discuss such a things before you
got 20 patches. That's why I posted very early RFC.

-- 
Rafał