Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 2:35 AM Kalle Valo <kvalo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> > Really, I could live with per-vendor APIs. My primary goal is to get >> > these upstream in some form, so vendors can stop using things like >> > this as a reason for shipping us non-upstream code, and so we can >> > reduce the delta between upstream and Chrome OS kernels. >> > >> > I also think that, for the cases that warrant it (i.e., the option 2 >> > -- Realtek and Qualcomm cases, so far), it would be good to have a >> > common API, but that's a somewhat secondary concern for me. >> >> So to me it feels like the best solution forward is to go with the >> vendor API, do you agree? We can, of course, later switch to the common >> API if we manage to create one which is usable for everyone. > > That's fine with me. That's pretty much what I said in my first email: > > "Anyway, I don't really object with starting out with a > Qualcomm-specific and a Realtek-specific vendor command to implement > nearly the same feature, but I'd prefer if people did engage in some > healthy discussion about why they can't share an API, with the hopes > that maybe they can converge someday." > > I think we've had some healthy (though very protracted) discussion, > and I don't think I've seen anyone bring up anything I wasn't already > aware of that would prevent eventual consolidation. As long as we > acknowledge those things (item 2 at > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api), > I'm happy. Good, I was just checking that we all are on the same page. >> > Also, Kalle had some concerns about stable ABI questions: shouldn't we >> > bake in some kind of "check for support" feature to these kinds of >> > APIs [3]? That would help ease transition, if we do start with a >> > vendor API and move to a common one in the future. >> >> Yeah, that sounds like a good idea but I don't think that should block >> these patches. > > OK, well it was your concern first, IIRC :) I was commenting about the "check for support" feature :) I think it would be a good idea to have userspace check what vendor interface features/commands are supported with that driver/hardware/firmware combo. But how should that be implemented? Should there be a some kind of generic mechanism used by all drivers or would each driver have their own method to check the supported features? I think that needs a separate discussion. > So what's next? A v2 that only needs a bit of updated description > about "why a vendor API"? I'm busy but hopefully Wen (CCed) can submit v2. Wen? > And Realtek can feel free to submit this [1] shortly? > [1] Series: rtw88: Add SAR implementation > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/?series=238219&state=* Yeah, please submit that as well. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
