RE: [PATCH 00/20] staging: brcm80211: 7th reaction for mainline patch #2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



> From: Rafał Miłecki [mailto:zajec5@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: donderdag 22 september 2011 10:57
> To: Arend Van Spriel
> Cc: Michael Büsch; Brett Rudley; Greg KH; John W. Linville; Franky
> (Zhenhui) Lin; gregkh@xxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; jonas.gorski@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] staging: brcm80211: 7th reaction for
> mainline patch #2
> 
> W dniu 22 września 2011 10:53 użytkownik Arend Van Spriel
> <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx> napisał:
> >> From: linux-wireless-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-wireless-
> >> owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Büsch
> >> Sent: donderdag 22 september 2011 1:29
> >> To: Brett Rudley
> >> Cc: Rafał Miłecki; Greg KH; John W. Linville; Franky (Zhenhui) Lin;
> >> gregkh@xxxxxxx; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-
> >> wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/20] staging: brcm80211: 7th reaction for
> >> mainline patch #2
> >>
> >> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:15:10 -0700
> >> "Brett Rudley" <brudley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> > We did however initially propose (and implement) a dividing line
> of
> >> ssb chips for b43 and AXI based chips for brcmsmac but b43 team
> chose
> >> to ignore/reject that.
> >>
> >> Well, what about embedded, for instance?
> >
> > The brcmsmac driver has been tested on a MIPS platform by Jonas
> Gorski
> > although only in STA mode (on a bcm63xx). Not having AP mode has been
> > explained in other emails.
> >
> > Also we fully intend to transition to BCMA but that would also be new
> > feature added. Having AP mode and BCMA would enable you guys for
> using
> > it in the embedded targets, right?
> >
> >> > I'm not totally opposed to that idea but it does not solve the
> >> primary issue of conflicting b43 and brcmsmac modules.
> >>
> >> I'm not convinced that this is an issue at all and I'm not convinced
> >> that it has to be resolved.
> >> At least not now.
> >>
> >
> > It never hurts to look ahead. Both drivers have their use in the
> linux
> > tree and we should align which driver is doing what. Apparently we
> should
> > have yelled really hard when b43 was adding bcma support, because
> then
> > it snatched the chipsets we support as well. You learn your lessons
> the
> > hard way in Linux land, or so it seems ;-)
> 
> And I should have notice you add code for N-PHY with your initial
> brcm80211 commit ;) There's always something that you won't notice at
> the correct time.
> 
> --
> Rafał

Were you unaware of the chipsets that brcmsmac was supporting? When you
Were working on N-PHY it was to enable certain chipsets, right? Was that
in ssb context?

Gr. AvS
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux