On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:00:49 +0100
Bernhard Schmidt <bschm...@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 <bschm...@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 <adr...@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > On 21 March 2011 04:28, Sergey V. Dyatko <sergey.dya...@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 <r...@dlink.ua>
aka Alex RAY <r...@ddteam.net>
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
