On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 12:13 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: > > I recall the rule was that nl80211 API changes > should also have at least one driver implementing it. Guess we let that > slip a couple of times. I fully agree enforcing this. Well, enforcing it strictly never really worked all that well in practice, since you don't necessarily want to have a complex driver implementation while hashing out the API, and the API fundamentally has to come first. So in a sense it comes down to trust, and that people will actually follow up with implementations. And yeah, plans can change and you end up not really supporting everything that was defined ... that's life, I guess. But the mode here seems to be that there's not even any _intent_ to do that? I guess we could hash out the API, review the patches, and then _not_ apply them until a driver is ready? So the first round of reviews would still come with API only, but once that settles we don't actually merge it immediately, unlike normally where we merge a patch we've reviewed? And then if whoever did it lost interest, we already have a reviewed version for anyone else who might need it? > FWIW I am actually > planning on submitting brcmfmac patches to support > NL80211_CMD_EXTERNAL_AUTH. Cool :) johannes
