Return-path: Received: from gv-out-0910.google.com ([216.239.58.191]:32558 "EHLO gv-out-0910.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1760552AbZJMQtO convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:49:14 -0400 From: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz To: Ozan =?utf-8?q?=C3=87a=C4=9Flayan?= Subject: Re: Current status of rt2800usb and staging/rt2870 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:44:58 +0200 Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel" References: <4AD46380.9020308@pardus.org.tr> In-Reply-To: <4AD46380.9020308@pardus.org.tr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <200910131844.58983.bzolnier@gmail.com> Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi, On Tuesday 13 October 2009 13:24:48 Ozan Çağlayan wrote: > Hi, > > In 2.6.31, there are USB device IDs common between both drivers. Should > a distribution enable both drivers? What do you suggest? Are there any > *known issues* stuff for one of them? My advice to distributions for such situations is to ship both but make one driver the default one. This provides users with better overall hardware coverage and flexibility. Additionally by providing the ability for direct comparison of both drivers it makes driver authors/maintainers try really hard at making the final solution work for everybody (instead of just making it work for their needs only etc.). Best regards, Bartlomiej