Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:58834 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754289AbYAYRlI (ORCPT ); Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:41:08 -0500 Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:38:41 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Dan Williams cc: Michael Buesch , Johannes Berg , "John W. Linville" , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.24-rc7 In-Reply-To: <1201282027.3422.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: (sfid-20080125_174113_021613_8821A1F7) References: <1201264166.12870.16.camel@johannes.berg> <200801251723.58891.mb@bu3sch.de> <1201282027.3422.15.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, Dan Williams wrote: > > Does Intel need to make iwlwifi and ipw2x00 work reliably on platforms > other than x86? Or don't they? Why should they? If somebody else takes over maintenance, because Intel does a bad job, that's fine. If somebody else sends in patches and they get accepted "around" Intel, that's obviously also fine. But complaining about a vendor who does a good job technically, for non-technical reasons, I really don't see that as being fine. Is it even physically *possible* to use that Intel wireless chipset with anything but x86 CPU's (not just that, but actually _Intel_ x86 CPU's)? And would it make any sense what-so-ever even if it was? And yes, portability is a great thing, but quite frankly, so is good hardware. I personally can't really blame Intel engineers for not caring about irrelevant hardware. We should make technical decisions on _technical_ grounds, not some perceived "this is how the world should work" grounds. Linus