Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:19:28 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: Adrian Chadd <adrian.chadd@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFT: if_ath HAL refactoring Message-ID: <201009210919.28923.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=7t=KKbHc2TJRsA=43t7eQtpshQVqyXT-aXMM4@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTikZUZ3%2BW%2Bikyiiw-L-X5v4t4EgTNF4vFf4w=oyK@mail.gmail.com> <201009200925.10362.jhb@freebsd.org> <AANLkTi=7t=KKbHc2TJRsA=43t7eQtpshQVqyXT-aXMM4@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday, September 20, 2010 10:06:53 am Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 20 September 2010 21:25, John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> wrote: > > > Why not include this iff both 'device ath' and 'device pci' are included? > > That is what is normally done for bus-specific attachments. > > I've not idea right now whether there's an Atheros SoC with an > AHB-attached wireless device and a PCI bus. In fact, that won't work > at the present time because the device names would clash. Why would the device names clash? We have _lots_ of drivers with multiple bus attachments that use the same name regardless of which bus they are on, and making a bus attachment conditional on the bus being present is what every other driver that desires this level of granularity does. -- John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201009210919.28923.jhb>