Re: [Bcm43xx-dev] Broadcom 43xx first results

[Michael Buesch <mbuesch@freenet.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1631 bytes --]

On Monday 05 December 2005 15:19, you wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 12:08:16PM +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> 
> > The SoftMAC is a separate module. That is _good_, so devices like
> > the ipw do not have to load the code, because they do not need it.
> > The SoftMAC ties (and integrates) very close to the ieee80211 subsystem.
> 
> I like the modular design..
> 
> > You see that SoftMAC is not exactly a part or the ieee80211 subsystem,
> > but it uses its interface to TX a frame (and the struct to get
> > some information about the device).
> 
> .. but I disagree with this. If there is functionality like generating
> management frames, it is very much part of the ieee80211 subsystem in my
> opinion.

Think of SoftMAC as an extension to ieee80211.

> > This all works fine. There is absolutely no need to bloat the
> > ieee80211 layer with functionality, which is not needed by all devices.
> 
> I'm afraid of this leading to duplicated work since ieee80211 stack is
> being used without this new SoftMAC code for devices that do need host
> CPU to take care of functionality that is currently in SoftMAC module
> and will be added to ieee80211 subsystem.

Well, I do not care for drivers ignoring SoftMAC and duplicating
the work. The question is: Why don't these drivers use SoftMAC?
(Yeah, because it is incomplete, is the answer. :D I am talking
about future.)
What is so hard about a driver including ieee80211.h _and_
ieee80211softmac.h, if it requires Software MAC? And what
exactly is duplicated work here? SoftMAC does _not_ duplicate;
it extends.

-- 
Greetings Michael.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]