Not a developer, just a tester, and not a very good one... but I am a _USER_ so here's my take.

The USERs don't want to know what card they have or what driver they need or PCI IDs. That's all stuff that makes them say "Linux Bad, *****s good." (Yeah I know, there's the whole driver moreass there and PCI VENs too) but anyway...

The driver should have a name that reflects its use and capabilities.

For example, bcm43xx is a reasonable name. I don't like it personally because the google links to the site (berlios.de) that tell me that's why I need took a while to find but that's just semantics.

bcm43xx_mac80211 is a less reasonable name. With respect to the coders who have put time into making this usable on by 4306 and almost usable on my 4311 I can say that I appreciate the effort... but the name needs work.

If I was king of driver package naming, the driver that works with v3 and v4 firmware and supports crypto functions would be... broadcom80211bg or bcm80211g
The driver that only works with v3 (aka bcm43xx) broadcomv3
The driver that only works with v4 (aka bcm43xx_mac80211) broadcomv4

As time advances and bcb43xx_mac80211/broadcomv4 is brought to spec so it works great... its code would be integrated into broadcom80211g/bcm80211g.

That's my thinking.  As a USER.  As a linux advocate and zealot.

I can tell you there are three things that are the #1 hindrance to massive Linux adoption
1. proprietary video cards
2. proprietary network cards
3. the various sundry and astonishingly in-the-way and annoying network-managers.

If you can solve #2... you've eliminated 33% of the problem and maybe even helped with #3.

Go Lewis Hamilton @ Nurbugring
Go Paul Tracy @ Edmonton

Ehud

Pavel Roskin wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 09:44 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 12:43:16AM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote:
Actually, the common practice is that the new driver that doesn't
supplant the old driver immediately and for the whole range of hardware
gets a new name.  Think CONFIG_IDE vs CONFIG_ATA and eepro100 vs e100.
Yes, this preserves stability for happy bcm43xx users. Still taking
suggestions for the new name for bcm43xx-mac80211... :-)

b43
bcm43
bcm4k3
bcmwifi
bcmwlan
bcm80211
brcm43xx
broadcom

I really like the minimalism of b43, which plays well with b44 and
p54 :)

Also, we could introduce a kernel option to enable support for new
devices in your driver.
Yes, this is probably worthwhile for those wishing to avoid PCI ID
conflicts between the drivers.  I have also been speculating that
perhaps we need an option for a secondary PCI ID table, so that a
driver could support a large range of PCI IDs but then gracefully
bow-out if another driver had a certain ID in its primary table.
Does that make any sense?  It would seem to be applicable to a number
of drivers in the kernel.

Yes, I used to hearing complains that orinoco steals IDs from hostap.
Then it became popular to blacklist orinoco modules.  Quite a disgrace
for the driver!  Having "weak" IDs for Prism based cards would have
avoided it.

But please realize that the problem goes far beyond PCI.  Perhaps you
have heard of CONFIG_USB_LIBUSUAL, which selects the best driver for USB
storage devices, either the slow but reliable ub, or the SCSI based
usb-storage, which it too fast for some cheap sticks.

It even has a parameter called "bias", which allows to control how
conservative the algorithm should be.  That would be hard to emulate
with "weak entries", but I hope that "bias" is an overkill.

Yes, we should probably start using a default value for fwpostfix.
As dwmw2 suggested, it would also be nice to fall back to an empty
fwpostfix if the firmware is not found w/ the default extension.

Yes, that sounds good.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

_______________________________________________
Bcm43xx-dev mailing list
Bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/bcm43xx-dev

Reply via email to