On Tue, 2009-10-20 at 08:35 +0200, Holger Schurig wrote: > > I really don't understand the point. Can't you just use the > > cfg80211 hooks and keep both functional at the same time? Just > > like orinoco does it uses cfg80211 only partially. > > I think I can't do this in a sane way. I don't see why not. > Oh, and please don't compare libertas all the time with orinoco. > Orinoco is FULLMAC, libertas is HALFMAC. > > Because libertas firmware doesn't roam, it has to be done in > software. Libertas does this in assoc.c, partly in scan.c, cmd.c > and wext.c and even main.c. For example, libertas keeps its own > list of BSS entries, has code to select the best matching BSS > when it comes to associating ... things like this. None of this code is relevant to mesh. > cfg80211 has this code too. No, it has no roaming etc. > Having two competing implementations running in one driver is a > way to havoc. I'm not saying you should keep the old _station_ code, I'm just saying you should hook it up in a way that doesn't make it exclusive with mesh. > I can't and won't do the MESH stuff: I don't have a firmware that > does MESH, no knowledge and usage case for MESH. It would, > however, be possible to keep the current mesh code with WEXT and > use cfg80211 for monitor/station mode. However, I dislike this > more than cfg80211/wext configurability. I'm not saying you should do mesh. I'm saying that instead of ripping out _all_ wext code you should just redirect/rewrite the wext handlers and call the cfg80211 ones, so that for _managed_ mode you get the new stuff, but for _mesh_ mode you keep the old code. Otherwise you're not doing the driver any good at all, since your patch then just means that both versions need to be maintained. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
