On 07/01/2014 07:38 PM, Olof Johansson wrote: > I'm not Greg, but in general the requirements of not breaking the > userspace ABI does not apply to staging drivers. > > However, that doesn't mean that it makes sense to gratuitously break it > "just because". Certainly not. My only concern was about replacing obsolete parts and if possible conforming to the standardized API, since it's there. Other than that, I definitely have no personal feeling towards "just because" :) As Ben mentions, the "wimax-tools" isn't a generic tool, > it's just a generic name for a tool for one other driver. > I don't think that's entirely true. From what I understand, wimax-tools (and in fact wimax.h) have probably stemmed from i2400m, but they are meant to be a generic layer based on the wimax stack. Note: I don't know if what brought you to this conclusion is the statement in their docs saying to configure using --with-i2400m=/path/to/i2400m/driver but if you run configure --help you will find out that it is now deprecated. Anyway, using wifitools is not required so that should not an issue. > Switching over to a generic netlink address seems reasonable. I'm less > certain how much it's worth to polish it beyond that, especially given > that there's already legacy tools out there that use the existing > interface (changing the address shouldn't be nearly as big a deal to > sort out than changing the whole ABI). > I agree. Please have a look on my reply to Ben's last message where I explain some of the technical details and let me know what you think. BTW, which other legacy tools are you referring to? Michalis _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
