Hostap_pci vs. orinoco_pci

[Jar]

> Do not build both modules. Or even send patch to remove prism2 dev IDs
> from orinoco.

Hostap_cpi and orinoco_pci has exactly the same IDs:

static struct pci_device_id prism2_pci_id_table[] __devinitdata = {
        /* Intersil Prism3 ISL3872 11Mb/s WLAN Controller */
        { 0x1260, 0x3872, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID },
        /* Intersil Prism2.5 ISL3874 11Mb/s WLAN Controller */
        { 0x1260, 0x3873, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID },
        /* Samsung MagicLAN SWL-2210P */
        { 0x167d, 0xa000, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID },
        { 0 }
};

static struct pci_device_id orinoco_pci_pci_id_table[] = {
        /* Intersil Prism 3 */
        {0x1260, 0x3872, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID,},
        /* Intersil Prism 2.5 */
        {0x1260, 0x3873, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID,},
        /* Samsung MagicLAN SWL-2210P */
        {0x167d, 0xa000, PCI_ANY_ID, PCI_ANY_ID,},
        {0,},
};

If the Prism2 IDs are taken off, nothing left. Should the orinoco_pci die and the
hostap_pci continue?

Still not understand why to support prism2 devices (e.g. pcmcia or pci) via orinoco
driver when better driver (hostap) for them is in (starting from 2.6.14). It would
be OK if the users could easily (wihout compiling the kernel) and temporarily
(without deleting the competing modules) block the other, but this is not currently
possible?

Should the authors of the orinoco driver concentrate to adding the
wpa/wpa_supplicant support for the pure orinoco(hermes1) products rather than adding
support for other devices which already has a proper Linux driver?

-- 
Best Regards, Jar