2009/8/28 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx>: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:01 PM, Nick Kossifidis<mickflemm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> 2009/8/27 Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 11:17 AM, Bob Copeland<bcopeland@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:58 AM, Nick Kossifidis<mickflemm@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>> 2009/8/27 Pavel Roskin <proski@xxxxxxx>: >>>> >>>>> Current code works fine (i 've checked it against various cards), >>>>> there is nothing wrong >>>>> with having another function for reading turbo modes, i find it's >>>>> cleaner that way. >>>> >>>> Well, we also don't use the turbo modes at all and that's where the >>>> error is (IIRC) so it shouldn't have any impact. :) >>> >>> Again, why don't we just remove all that fucking turbo cruft? >>> >>> Luis >>> >> >> Why should we remove it, we are discussing on implementing channel >> width setting for 5 and 10 MHz channels already so where is the >> problem supporting turbo mode (40MHz) ? > > Supporting 5 MHz and 10 MHz channels is very different than supporting > Turbo (40 MHz). 5 MHz and 10 MHz channels seems to be something you > can use as per 802.11, 40 MHz "Turbo" stuff is just a vendor extension > and at least by my part I don't want to move a finger to either > support it nor do I think its a good idea to support it. Other people > have objected to vendor extensions before on mac80211 so I don't think > you'll find much support for this from a lot of people. > Many people use turbo mode and it's not an ugly proprietary extension, static turbo mode is close to just having 40MHz channels, we can use the same way to switch to it as with 5 and 10MHz channels. The difficult part is having dynamic turbo (supporting 20MHz and 40MHz stations at the same time) but we don't deal with it anyway (and it's only useful on ap mode). Most code is there, we are ready to support 5/10/40MHz channels on the driver part as soon as we are done with cfg80211/mac80211 compatibility so why drop it ? > The way I see is if you want vendor extensions like Atheros Turbo or > XR use MadWifi. > XR is not supported on MadWiFi, i remember only some parts were supported + we don't have much to work with anyway (XR code is missing from Legacy and Sam's HAL) + not many people use it anyway so i agree we can drop it but it's nothing like turbo mode, as i said many people use that. >> Also EEPROM code should read the eeprom and fill the structs, since >> these infos are there we should read them, i don't see any reason to >> skip them > > I didn't see Bob's patch remove that stuff. Its pointless to use it though. > It can be confusing (offsets missing etc) + we might want to put eeprom infos on debugfs (i had an ugly patch just for that) for debuging. >> i thought our goal was to support this hw as much as >> possible, > > We should support users as best as possible, whether or not you > support vendor extensions is an entirely different story. > >> if we want to get rid of MadWiFi we 'll have to at least >> support 5, 10 and 40MHz (turbo) channels. > > I don't want to get rid of MadWifi, what we have now is a proper > upstream replacement. MadWifi is still a hack put together, and people > who want hacks can use that. > Having multiple drivers won't help users, i thought that MadWiFi was "dead" and we were working on a complete alternative. -- GPG ID: 0xD21DB2DB As you read this post global entropy rises. Have Fun ;-) Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
