From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail.candelatech.com ([208.74.158.172] helo=ns3.lanforge.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1WGBS0-0002bK-KM for ath10k@lists.infradead.org; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 18:00:53 +0000 Message-ID: <5304F130.5040406@candelatech.com> Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 10:00:16 -0800 From: Ben Greear MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] [PATCHv3] wifi: Introduce 802.11ac support References: <1391185897-29339-1-git-send-email-sven@open-mesh.com> <87bny5lu4a.fsf@purkki.adurom.net> <2862175.0bPvy6dDPg@bentobox> <87fvnfzbg0.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> In-Reply-To: <87fvnfzbg0.fsf@kamboji.qca.qualcomm.com> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "ath10k" Errors-To: ath10k-bounces+kvalo=adurom.com@lists.infradead.org To: Kalle Valo Cc: Kalle Valo , Sven Eckelmann , ath10k@lists.infradead.org, Matti Laakso , Simon Wunderlich , OpenWrt Development List On 02/19/2014 01:41 AM, Kalle Valo wrote: > (Adding ath10k@lists.infradead.org) > > Sven Eckelmann writes: > >> On Monday 17 February 2014 05:57:25 Kalle Valo wrote: >>> Sven Eckelmann writes: >>>> The ath10k patch wasn't resent because the driver patches are now >>>> integrated in the OpenWrt mac80211 package. The answer in >>>> >>>> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.embedded.openwrt.devel/22422 also >>>> wasn't> >>>> quite promising. >>> >>> What do you mean? What was wrong with my answer? >> >> Nothing is "wrong" but you said that there are two branches. One is "AP mode, >> nothing else" and the other one is "main branch again has more >> features, like P2P, ...". So I don't see a good reason why a multi-purpose >> system like openwrt should accept my patch to change it to the "AP-only" >> ath10k firmware. > > AP mode in 10.1 firmware is extensively tested and that's why I strongly > recommend to use 10.1 firmware as the default in openwrt. I don't think > it's wise to knowingle cripple ath10k AP mode in openwrt just because > lack of P2P support. Like Matti also said, AP mode is most important in > openwrt, we should have that properly supported first. > > But we should try ways to mitigate the problem of having two firmware > branches. For example, should we have a module parameter in ath10k to > choose which firmware to use? Or is there even a way to do that > automatically based on what interfaces are used? > > I'm happy to hear any ideas how to improve this. I don't think it can be done automatically, at least not in general, because users may add/remove interface types after the firmware is loaded. Resetting the NIC and reloading firmware is a bit touchy currently, so I don't think you want to switch to different firmware dynamically. A module option is probably the best way to do this in my opinion. Thanks, Ben -- Ben Greear Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k