OSEC

Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email hr@neohapsis.com
 
From: David Gibson (hermes_at_gibson.dropbear.id.au)
Date: Thu Aug 01 2002 - 19:40:42 CDT

  • Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

    On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 02:51:32PM +0200, Joerg Dorchain wrote:
    > On Wed, Jul 31, 2002 at 11:32:20AM +1000, David Gibson wrote:
    > >
    > > Ok, sorry, it's not quite as bad as I thought. But this highlights
    > > part of the point - I missed the extra if statements in your patch
    > > because your indentation doesn't match mine.
    >
    > Sorry, I tried to adapt it. I promise to learn.
    > >
    > > How similar are the PLX and TMD chips really? Is it worth putting
    > > support into the same module, or should we create a new orinoco_tmd.c
    > > with support for the TMD chips?
    >
    > AFAIK they both only provide access to the Prism2 chip. Differences are:
    > - The PLX chip has three recourse areas. The addional one provides access
    > to the PCMCIA cis, which is only used for checking wether the card has
    > a know value. This additional check is not possible for the TMD chip.
    > The only place where it is used is the init_one function. As I see it,
    > it is redundancy checking.
    > - The two remaing recources areas are swapped for their functionality.
    >
    > These roughly 32 lines of additional code are all that is needed to make
    > the driver work. The layout of the prism2 registers is the same, it just
    > fits. The rest of the code is shared, so creating a new file with 95%
    > identical code makes no sense to me.

    Ok, that's reasonable. Send me a patch that's properly formatted, and
    I'll probably apply it.

    > Maybe it would be an idea to put the common code into one file and then
    > have two files of about 30 lines which contain the init_one and
    > remove_one functions. IMHO it is overkill. It might be worth a config
    > option, though. You are the maintainer, so you will have the final word
    > ;)

    No, I agree that is overkill.

    > For the patch itself, I have two more remarks. I noticed meanwhile that
    > the card also initialzes with an mdelay(1). The other is that the address
    > for the outb(0x45) corresponds to the corr register, so for better
    > readability it could be replaced by appropriate macros.

    Send me a patch... :)

    -- 
    David Gibson			| For every complex problem there is a
    davidgibson.dropbear.id.au	| solution which is simple, neat and
    				| wrong.
    http://www.ozlabs.org/people/dgibson