Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 12:26 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > >> > > 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. > > But why wouldn't we try that now, while we have it all in our heads (in > a way ... even if this discussion drags out forever)? > > I mean, the range-based approach ought to work, and if we define it as a > nested attribute list or so, we can even later add more attributes to it > (chain limits, whatnot) without any backward compatibility concerns. > > So what is it that we _cannot_ do in a more common way today? > >> > 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. > > But are we? ;-) > > I don't really see anything in the new proposal [1] that really explains > why the common API that we've sort of vaguely outlined in this thread > couldn't work? It just speaks of technical difficulties ("need a > reporting API too"), but should we let that stop us? > > [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11686317/ I misunderstood then, I thought everyone were leaning towards the vendor API approach. But yeah, of course a common API is much better if people think it's doable. So I'll now drop all the vendor API patches from patchwork and assume/hope that we will get the common API at some point. -- https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches
