Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2011 09:36:24 +0100 From: Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt@freebsd.org> To: Ninad Adi <adi.ninad@gmail.com> Cc: freebsd-wireless@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Why does iwn driver in FreeBSD is coded in just one file. Message-ID: <CAAgh0_aPHivpa25CvgvBRNRtLUv=JiAY42NvhYdf3iq_6LM2-Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CAEOZPkZ4rHesHC2LCPqRwa%2BQQSeONB_rEBK7vKo4T4HJxguk8w@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAEOZPkbcfpvscMiOhMiqdKVy-2C9_3CieG4TgpyD9ATq_m9j7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAEOZPkZ4rHesHC2LCPqRwa%2BQQSeONB_rEBK7vKo4T4HJxguk8w@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 20:52, Ninad Adi <adi.ninad@gmail.com> wrote: > Hereby, I officially =A0propose the splitting up of iwn driver code as > it is growing and will continue growing as > rate scaling improvements plus the P2P mode support would come into pictu= re. iwn(4) is imported (mostly, sans 11n support) unmodified from OpenBSD, up till now there isn't a single valid reason to split up any of the code. Heck, I've done my best to keep the code diff(1)able against the original code. If *you* gonna provide additional features to iwn(4) I might reconsider that decision, but I want to see some code first. Btw, any ratectl related stuff should go to net80211(4) not to the drivers, same for P2P, we have not a single line of code to support that currently. --=20 Bernhard
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAAgh0_aPHivpa25CvgvBRNRtLUv=JiAY42NvhYdf3iq_6LM2-Q>