Return-path: Received: from mail-pv0-f174.google.com ([74.125.83.174]:33782 "EHLO mail-pv0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753420Ab0CBHi0 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Mar 2010 02:38:26 -0500 Received: by pva4 with SMTP id 4so796206pva.19 for ; Mon, 01 Mar 2010 23:38:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <19340.37231.983326.296054@gargle.gargle.HOWL> References: <19339.35506.86567.739868@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <43e72e891003011524m4d14bb2ai550f5e07e5a11aa4@mail.gmail.com> <19340.37231.983326.296054@gargle.gargle.HOWL> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2010 23:38:06 -0800 Message-ID: <43e72e891003012338q7da06ac0o7ff6ed6398626dcb@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] ath9k: Remove common module To: Sujith Cc: "linville@tuxdriver.com" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 8:17 PM, Sujith wrote: > Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> Interesting approach, instead of having two modules you linked lib.o >> twice to two separate modules, ath9k.ko and ath9k_htc.ko. While this >> does reduce module proliferation is there any advantage to that over >> the approach of stuffing these into one common module shared between >> both? >> >> The benefit of doing it as a module is if both are built-in you reduce >> the final kernel size. On my box with debugging this is 256 KB. > > The built-in case would be mostly useful in embedded systems (SoC etc ..). > And it is likely to be either ath9k or ath9k_htc. I don't think that > both family of chipsets can exist simultaneously. ChromeOs builds everything as built-in so in that case you will have both eventually enabled. > And since the code that is shared is very minimal (a few general routines and crypto), > it felt reasonable to just stuff into a common library. Although it may be a few common helpers it could grow to share common mac80211 helpers. After all, there are a few calls which could simply be shared. Luis