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:

quoted

On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 08:12 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 07:10:22AM -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 07:44 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:46:45AM -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2011-08-15 at 07:21 -0700, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 06:13:39AM -0700, Guy, Wey-Yi wrote:

quoted

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.

quoted

 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

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

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