> From: David Lin > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 9:00 AM > To: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Brian Norris > <briannorris@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Francesco Dolcini <francesco@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: kvalo@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Pete Hsieh <tsung-hsien.hsieh@xxxxxxx>; > rafael.beims <rafael.beims@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Francesco Dolcini > <francesco.dolcini@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: RE: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v9 0/2] wifi: mwifiex: add code to support host > mlme > > > 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 BTW, vendor should have the choice to use cfg80211 or mac80211 for their chips, right?
