On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 3:10 AM, Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 2010-08-02 11:52 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 2:32 AM, Felix Fietkau <nbd@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 2010-08-02 11:23 AM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >>>> Sure, I just did not see any code for this in these patches. My point >>>> about the hw config vs fake/mod'd is if we'd expose the mod'd config >>>> changes to userspace or if we'd keep them internal to cfg80211. How >>>> would this be dealt with? >>> Right now, cfg80211 doesn't know enough to handle this stuff on its own, >>> so let's handle it in the driver completely on the first iteration. The >>> patches do not need any changes for this right now. >> >> I'd prefer that code to be written rather then let this be defined as >> API now and let drivers deal with this differently. But that's me, I'm >> not the maintainer, I just will not deal with bug reports dealing with >> this and I'll assign them to you guys if this gets through. Still >> think its crap and should just go through debugfs until all the code >> mentioned does exist. > Sorry, but WTF? There's two parts to this: API visible to user space, > and the internal API for handling changes. > So you're suggesting to reject the user space API, because of missing > parts in the internal API (which we can change any time) that will only > be used for drivers that this series doesn't even contain any code for?? > Am I confused here, or does this seem rather strange? If the current patches are accepted it means anyone *can* submit patches for an 802.11n driver and expect it to be accepted. Hence why I was asking for this to be defined as a legacy API only, if that is the only purpose right now. Luis -- 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
