2011/9/22 Arend Van Spriel <arend@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> 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? I was aware of supported chipsets (by their names), but I got no idea that they (BCM43224 and BCM43225) are N-PHY based ones. I though that that are some totally new PHYs (like SSLPN/HT/LCN/LCNXN/etc.). -- Rafał _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
