Re: [CFR]RT305xF support, w/o attachment

On Monday, March 21, 2011 10:29:11 Aleksandr Rybalko wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 07:04:22 +0100
> Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> 
> >> On Monday 21 March 2011 00:16:01 Aleksandr Rybalko wrote:
> >> > On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 05:59:45 +0800
> >> > Adrian Chadd <adrian_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> > 
> >> > > On 21 March 2011 04:28, Sergey V. Dyatko <sergey.dyatko_at_gmail.com>
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > > 
> >> > > 
> >> > > > Last patch from Aleksandr 'works fine for me', so... may be rt2860
> >> > > > should be replaced to 'rt' for example ?
> >> > > > rt0: flags= blah-blah-blah IHMO looks more .....nice(?) than
> >> > > > rt28600: flags=
> >> > > >
> >> > > 
> >> > > Yup, that's a good idea. Aleksandr, can you please do that?
> >> > 
> >> > Off-course I can, but seems better name will be rtw or rtn, because we
> >> > already have if_rt (for RT3052 ether) which have iface name "rt".
> >> > 
> >> > I think "rtn" is best. 
> >> > 
> >> > Maybe someone have better? 
> >> 
> >> rtw is a name for a Realtek driver.
> Realtek driver called urtw, but I agree with you to avoid confusion.

That rtw driver I'm speaking of is for older Realtek 8180/8185 PCI
based chips. Granted, not in our tree, but it exists. urtw(4) is for
8187B/L USB chipsets.
 
> >> 
> >> I'd prefer if can keep this driver in sync with the OpenBSD one where
> >> it is clearly derived from. So, rt28xx and rt30xx support has to be an
> >> extension to ral(4). That shouldn't be to hard to do, just throw in the
> >> code into dev/ral/ and hook it to the pci/ops code.
> This driver closer to USB run(4), but this use USB and difference still big.
> 
> In future, not so closer, I will try to join run, ral and my rt2860. But there is too much work and I need to find time for it.

Please don't. There is a reason the PCI and USB chipsets, even if
derived from the same base chipset, have different drivers. The BUS
specific implementation/restrictions are way too different/important.
Trying to merge those will only make your head ache :)

> 
> >> 
> 
> So for now, best name is "rtn".
> 
> If no objections, I send updated patch with new name.

I still don't think this is the way to go. Adding a totally independent
driver now and replacing (or merging) it later simple won't work. Also,
it is quite annoying from user point of view.

I urge you to have a closer look at ral(4) and it's way of handling
RT2500 and RT2600 specific differences. In it's simplest form you can
copy the OpenBSD code 1:1 without any functional changes, heck, it's
the source of this driver anyway.

-- 
Bernhard