On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:00:49 +0100 Bernhard Schmidt <bschmidt_at_freebsd.org> wrote: >> 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 I've look on difference between RT2[56]00 and RT2860 some time ago, but done it again, and found that we can only place RT2860/RT3090 support under same name (ral), but hardware have too big difference. And in case I do this patch for RT3052F SoC, when I placing RT2860 into ral, i get completely different driver (because SoC don't use PCI interface). So can You (or someone else) hint me, how to done this? switch (what to do) { case 'Remake run to support PCI and SoC interface': Much work to make driver bus independent; case 'Port OpenBSD one': driver do not support SoC (SoC device don't have MCU); break; case 'Place my RT2860 under dev/ral': different device in same driver; break; } Hint me please. WBW -- Alexandr Rybalko <ray_at_dlink.ua> aka Alex RAY <ray_at_ddteam.net>Received on Mon Mar 21 2011 - 09:53:05 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:12 UTC