>-----Original Message----- >From: ext Dan Williams [mailto:dcbw@xxxxxxxxxx] >Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2008 0:40 >> >> Hello, >> >> Some time ago, a colleague of mine, Luciano Coelho, opened a >> discussion with this same subject. I think it is time now for me to >> continue that discussion, because our aim, like that of >Intel's, is to >> achieve a unified WiMAX driver interface for Linux. For >reference, the >> original posting is archived in >> http://linuxwimax.org/pipermail/wimax/2008-June/000028.html. >> >> As Luca explains in his e-mail, the Nokia architechture is different >> from the approach taken by Intel. >> - The Nokia architechture places the device independent WiMAX >> interface at the kernel/user-space barrier, so that all user-space >> components are independent of the WiMAX device. >> >> - The Intel architechture places the device independent WiMAX >> interface on top of a user-space library, so that in the >> kernel/user-space barrier, essentially, chipset specific >messages are >> exchanged. >> >> In the original posting, Luciano stated that the Nokia >driver sources >> are not publicized yet. This has now changed. For reference, please >> see the Maemo.org repository at >> >http://repository.maemo.org/pool/maemo4.1/free/k/kernel-source-diablo/ >> >> The Nokia driver currently implements the WiMAX methods as private >> extensions to the WLAN wireless events interface. Obviously, for a >> long term solution fixed messages would need to be defined. >Still, the > >Yeah, that's not going to work upstream, which is where we >eventually want this to go... I think a fusion of the Intel >and Nokia approaches is the best direction; taking the netlink >communication approach from the Intel drivers, and the >device-independence (and supplicant communication approach) >from the Nokia drivers. > >Basically, WE is dead dead dead, and should no longer be used >under any circumstances. A specific WiMAX netlink >communications system should be used, like Intel has done. >But there are still concerns upstream with the >device-specificity of the kernel/userspace API as Intel has written it. > >I guess you guys just rewrote the Intel drivers, or wrote new >drivers from scratch for the 2400 hardware? > >Dan > The Nokia driver is not a rewrite of any Intel driver, it is has been written from scratch by Nokia, and as far as I know well before the Intel WiMAX Linux development had really speeded up. Although I share your view on WE, and I think a netlink message based interface would be elegant, I'm not sure how the community will view a driver interface without IOCTL based control. I agree with you. The best solution would be a fusion. A netlink message based interface with the abstract WiMAX operations (with interface abstraction at the level used in the Nokia driver) would be the way to start defining a uniform WiMAX driver interface for Linux. -Juuso >> methods defined in the interface have been proven to work on a real >> product, and could serve as good reference defining a device >> independent WiMAX driver interface for Linux. >> >> It is my personal feeling that the Nokia approach is closer >to what is >> intended by the driver model in operating systems, such as Linux.
