On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:51:15PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 08:44 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:34:58PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 08:22 -0400, John W. Linville wrote: > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:51:35PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > > > > > > > > In 3.9 we introduced P2P support in brcmfmac which was functional using > > > > > current wpa_supplicant P2P support, but we did not yet support the > > > > > P2P_DEVICE user-space API. > > > > > > > > > > Last week I enabled that in brcmfmac testing it with wpa_supplicant > > > > > patches for P2P_DEVICE support from David Spinadel. So I do have a > > > > > couple of brcmfmac patches to make that work and would like to submit > > > > > those for 3.9 although it is not strictly a bug fix. Would you consider > > > > > taking these? > > > > > > > > That doesn't sound to me like something that would be worthy of such > > > > an exception. > > > > > > Maybe just make a small patch to disable the other API, so we don't end > > > up having to support both? > > > > Maybe I misunderstood. So brcmfmac currently supports a P2P API > > that is not otherwise available and which we don't want to support > > in the future? > > As I understand it, brcmfmac currently supports having a P2P device > *netdev*, which is of (wireless) type STATION (presumably), which isn't > something we want to support (well, I don't anyway, it's difficult to > discover for applications). > > The "correct" way (the way I decided to implement this P2P device > concept in the upstreamtree ) is to have a P2P device *wireless dev* > which has no netdev associated -- this makes more sense since no data > frames are ever transmitted or received on a P2P device. > > As I understand Arend, he was suggesting to put patches into 3.9 that > would move brcmfmac from the interim API with a netdev he had used for > testing to the final API that is actually implemented in 3.9 but before > the wpa_supplicant patches had no way to get used. Now those patches are > there in wpa_supplicant though (or well, on their way in) I see...in that case, a patch that disables the interim API seems appropriate. John -- John W. Linville Someday the world will need a hero, and you linville@xxxxxxxxxxxxx might be all we have. Be ready. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
