On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 10:42 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > So looks to me like Broadcom doesn't want its (real) drivers to work in > > upstream, so I guess we really ought to just stop accommodating for them > > in the wireless stack... This only works if we collaborate, and I've > > said this before: I can't maintain something well that I cannot see (and > > possibly change) the user(s) of. > > Understood and you are right. The brcm80211 drivers, which are not less > real ;-) , were a side-project to serve a certain group of customers. It's a real driver, fair enough. But yeah, you do get the sense that whatever it is, it really "was" and "isn't" any more. > Unfortunately it never became the main driver for Broadcom. Cypress did > invest in brcmfmac, but we know how that went since Infineon took over. > Maybe they will upstream the ifxfmac driver [1] some day but I have no > high hopes on that. That doesn't even look super awful, they could probably drop it into staging as is ... But that'd mean somebody actually cares, which really seems to be the problem. But since clearly there's no incentive for anyone here in this game to upstream anything to start with, I also don't see why I should give more incentive to _not_ upstream things by accommodating non-upstream drivers in the upstream wifi stack... So I'm dropping this patch, Broadcom can decide what they want first, but you can't have both upstream and non-upstream together. And for the record, I'm very happy that you have and still are maintaining this driver as far as it's come. johannes
