On Thursday 08/22 at 14:56 +0200, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 05:44:50PM +0800, David Lin wrote: > > This series adds support for IW61x which is a new family of 2.4/5 GHz > > dual-band 1x1 Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth/Bluetooth Low Energy 5.2 and 15.4 > > tri-radio single chip by NXP. These devices support 20/40/80MHz > > single spatial stream in both STA and AP mode. Communication to the > > IW61x is done via SDIO interface > > > > This driver is a derivative of existing Mwifiex [1] and based on similar > > full-MAC architecture [2]. It has been tested with i.MX8M Mini evaluation > > kits in both AP and STA mode. > > > > All code passes sparse and checkpatch > > > > Data sheet (require registration): > > https://www.nxp.com/products/wireless-connectivity/wi-fi-plus-bluetooth- > > plus-802-15-4/2-4-5-ghz-dual-band-1x1-wi-fi-6-802-11ax-plus-bluetooth-5- > > 4-plus-802-15-4-tri-radio-solution:IW612 > > > > Known gaps to be addressed in the following patches, > > - Enable 11ax capabilities. This initial patch support up to 11ac. > > - Support DFS channel. This initial patch doesn't support DFS channel in > > both AP/STA mode. > > > > This patch is presented as a request for comment with the intention of being > > made into a patch after initial feedbacks are addressed > > > > [1] We had considered adding IW61x to mwifiex driver, however due to > > FW architecture, host command interface and supported features are > > significantly different, we have to create the new nxpwifi driver. > > Subsequent NXP chipsets will be added and sustained in this new driver. > > I added IW61x support to the mwifiex driver and besides the VDLL > handling which must be added I didn't notice any differences. There > might be other differences, but I doubt that these can't be integrated > into the mwifiex driver. Hi Sascha, I'd also love to see this patchset, if you're able to share it. I can test on an IW612 if that's helpful at all. > Honestly I don't think adding a new driver is a good ideai, given how big > wifi drivers are and how limited the review bandwidth is. > > What we'll end up with is that we'll receive the same patches for both > drivers, or worse, only for one driver while the other stays unpatched. I have some concrete experience with "in-tree driver forks" like this: a pair of SCSI drivers named mpt2sas and mpt3sas. The latter was created as a near copy of the former: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=f92363d12359 The result was *exactly* what you forsee happening here: both drivers were constantly missing fixes from the other, and they were just subtly different enough that it wasn't simple to "port" patches from one to the other. It was a frustrating experience for everybody involved. I think their git histories prove your point, I'd encourage everyone with a horse in this race to take a look at them. It took three years to finally unify them: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c84b06a48c4d I doubt anyone would disagree that wifi drivers are much more complex than SCSI drivers. It would be strictly *worse* here, and the path to unifying them strictly longer. Thanks, Calvin > I even found some of the bugs and deficiencies I am just fixing for the > mwifiex driver in the nxpwifi driver as well. So please direct your > effort to improving the existing driver rather than putting more burden > to the maintainers by adding a new driver. I am sure this is the faster > path to get the necessary changes upstream, plus users of the mwifiex > driver will profit from these changes as well. > > Of course I don't have to decide this. The wifi maintainer(s) will have > the final word, but these are my 2 cents on this topic. > > Sascha > > > -- > Pengutronix e.K. | | > Steuerwalder Str. 21 | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | > 31137 Hildesheim, Germany | Phone: +49-5121-206917-0 | > Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686 | Fax: +49-5121-206917-5555 |
