On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 23:07 -0800, ext Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: > On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Luciano Coelho > <luciano.coelho@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ... > > In theory the API *has* changed, not just extended. Check this: > > > > - ACX_BA_SESSION_RESPONDER_POLICY = 0x0055, > > - ACX_BA_SESSION_INITIATOR_POLICY = 0x0056, > > + ACX_BA_SESSION_POLICY_CFG = 0x0055, > > + ACX_BA_SESSION_RX_SETUP = 0x0056, > > > > But in practice, this doesn't matter, because we were not using the > > RESPONDER/INITIATOR commands before... > > Right. So an old driver will still work with this new firmware. > > > It's basically just those two extra commands that were added. And one > > new event that is part of a future patch. > > > > In theory, we could check the firmware revision after boot and bail out > > if the version doesn't match. > > Why not just disable BA sessions in this case (and keep that new event > masked), and let the driver keep running (just like it does today) ? > > This way the new driver will work even with the old firmware (yes, > with degraded functionality, but most random ppl will just not care), > and of course, the old driver will keep working with the new firmware. > > For us developers who lurk in linux-wireless it seems like a trivial > change, but if we consider the growing size of the 12xx community, and > the long period of time for which such a change will be effective (ppl > upgrading to latest compat, ppl that will one day upgrade to 2.6.38, > future ppl that will bisect and cross this firmware name change, > etc...), it's actually a lot of accumulated pain. > > To keep our community happy, I vote to eliminate this pain when not necessary. Hear, hear! Shahar, can you fix that? -- Cheers, Luca. -- 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
