From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-vw0-f172.google.com ([209.85.212.172]:55468 "EHLO mail-vw0-f172.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752855AbZHSTIh (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:08:37 -0400 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2so3926058vws.4 for ; Wed, 19 Aug 2009 12:08:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <43e72e890908191150h6fa8a811u30c57420afd17e08@mail.gmail.com> References: <1250530052-14783-1-git-send-email-lrodriguez@atheros.com> <20090819150138.GB5905@tuxdriver.com> <20090819180235.GA7126@mosca> <20090819183506.GG5905@tuxdriver.com> <43e72e890908191150h6fa8a811u30c57420afd17e08@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 15:08:38 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/33] wireless: kconfig updates From: Bob Copeland To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Cc: "John W. Linville" , Luis Rodriguez , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > Well so to group all of Intel stuff we do need this, at least I can't > think of a way to do it. If we don't want to group intel stuff then we > can remove it. Is there a downside to this grouping, for example? One (admittedly hand-wavy) argument against vendor grouping is that you don't always know who made the chip. So you have CompanyA buying CompanyB's IP, making a product, and then we write a driver for CompanyA's device called awifi2000. Meanwhile CompanyB sells it to CompanyC too so their "C Wifi Plus" product happens to work with the awifi2000 driver. Now you have to reorg the menus to put it under CompanyB. I imagine this is a lot less likely with wireless, if you know enough to write a driver, you usually know who made it. But ISTR it happened a lot with v4l stuff since there are more commodity parts on those cards. -- Bob Copeland %% www.bobcopeland.com