> From: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2024 8:13 PM > To: Brian Norris <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Francesco Dolcini > <francesco@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; David Lin <yu-hao.lin@xxxxxxx>; Pete Hsieh > <tsung-hsien.hsieh@xxxxxxx>; rafael.beims <rafael.beims@xxxxxxxxxxx>; > Francesco Dolcini <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v9 0/2] wifi: mwifiex: add code to support host mlme > > Caution: This is an external email. Please take care when clicking links or > opening attachments. When in doubt, report the message using the 'Report > this email' button > > > On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 17:49 -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > > > Now that I've looked a bit closer today: I'm realizing this may(?) be > > one of the first "full MAC" drivers trying to implement its own MLME > > -- or at least, the auth/assoc bits. > > Hmm, yeah, why _is_ that? mwifiex was originally "sold" as a "full MAC" > driver, i.e. doing things in the firmware. > > We've said that "soft MAC" drivers should be using mac80211, but this thing > can't seem to decide? > > Also decl.h should probably _shrink_ rather than grow, a number of things just > replicate ieee80211.h (such as MWIFIEX_MGMT_HEADER_LEN really is just > sizeof(ieee80211_mgmt) or so? Not quite correctly.) > This can be done for feature patches. > So yeah, agree with Brian, not only would this be the first, but it's also > something we don't really _want_. All other drivers that want stuff like this are > stuck in staging ... > > So why is this needed for a supposedly "firmware does it all" driver, and why > can it not be integrated with mac80211 if it's no longer "firmware does it all"? > > Johannes Our proprietary driver is cfg80211 driver, it is very hard to create a brand new mac80211 driver and still can port all tested stuffs from our proprietary driver. Thanks, David
