[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160414.174951.1036895874300851739.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 17:49:51 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: f.fainelli@...il.com
Cc: vivien.didelot@...oirfairelinux.com, andrew@...n.ch,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/8] dsa: mv88e6xxx: Prepare for turning this
into a library module
From: Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2016 14:26:39 -0700
> On 14/04/16 13:22, Vivien Didelot wrote:
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch> writes:
>>
>>> Export all the functions so that we can later turn the module into a
>>> library module.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>
>>
>> Sorry but I don't like this. We don't want one module per 88E6xxx switch
>> model. We need one driver supporting them all, like any other driver.
>
> Are you sure this is a good model moving forward? This means the library
> needs to know about every new switch added and all its little gory
> details, whereas the point is that it represents *most* of what is
> needed, defines a good enough, generic model, but does not have to deal
> (too much) with HW-specifics, see below.
I also think all of the mv88e6xxx drivers are insanely similar, and could
be driven by one monolithic driver. It's not going to be that big at all.
Symbol exporting from a library and having several small similar
drivers reference those symbols, on the other hand, tends to be messy
in my opinion.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists