From owner-freebsd-mobile@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 21 13:35:39 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 19E1810656B0; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:35:39 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jhb@freebsd.org) Received: from cyrus.watson.org (cyrus.watson.org [65.122.17.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE1B98FC0A; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:35:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bigwig.baldwin.cx (66.111.2.69.static.nyinternet.net [66.111.2.69]) by cyrus.watson.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F0CC46C15; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:35:38 -0400 (EDT) Received: from jhbbsd.localnet (smtp.hudson-trading.com [209.249.190.9]) by bigwig.baldwin.cx (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CCAF28A04F; Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:35:32 -0400 (EDT) From: John Baldwin To: Adrian Chadd Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:19:28 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (FreeBSD/7.3-CBSD-20100819; KDE/4.4.5; amd64; ; ) References: <201009200925.10362.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201009210919.28923.jhb@freebsd.org> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.0.1 (bigwig.baldwin.cx); Tue, 21 Sep 2010 09:35:32 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.95.1 at bigwig.baldwin.cx X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=4.2 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on bigwig.baldwin.cx Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org Subject: Re: RFT: if_ath HAL refactoring X-BeenThere: freebsd-mobile@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Mobile computing with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2010 13:35:39 -0000 On Monday, September 20, 2010 10:06:53 am Adrian Chadd wrote: > On 20 September 2010 21:25, John Baldwin wrote: > > > Why not include this iff both 'device ath' and 'device pci' are included? > > That is what is normally done for bus-specific attachments. > > I've not idea right now whether there's an Atheros SoC with an > AHB-attached wireless device and a PCI bus. In fact, that won't work > at the present time because the device names would clash. Why would the device names clash? We have _lots_ of drivers with multiple bus attachments that use the same name regardless of which bus they are on, and making a bus attachment conditional on the bus being present is what every other driver that desires this level of granularity does. -- John Baldwin