Re: Insist on cfg80211 for new drivers?

[Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>]

Hi Greg,

> > > >> > That's really all I
> > > >> > care about, I don't want another WEXT-based driver accepted; I want all
> > > >> > the new ones using cfg80211.
> > > >>
> > > >> Now there is a discussion we should have had in Berlin...is it time
> > > >> to insist on cfg80211-based configuration for all new drivers?
> > > >
> > > > there is really nothing much to discuss on this topic. The plan is to
> > > > deprecate WEXT, that simple. So if the driver has no cfg80211 support,
> > > > then it will not be included. Period.
> > > >
> > > > Send such drivers off to staging and let them have their 6 month.  Then
> > > > we either remove them again or they got ported to cfg80211.
> > > 
> > > 6 months only in staging ? Is this a rule now for staging?
> > 
> > that is what Greg mentioned to me. If there is no activity for 6 month
> > and the driver is not getting anywhere, he going to drop it.
> 
> That is "within reason".  If a driver is still needed there, I'l
> probably keep it, and will take each one on a case-by-case basis.

what do you mean "within reason". If the driver is just sitting there
and no effort in making in upstream ready it is doing clearly more harm
than any good. And I am not talking about removing some kernel version
details or typedefs or coding style. Drivers with missing cfg80211 need
active porting. And it is not that hard. See the orinoco one for an
example.

If we see developers committed to fixing it that is a different story,
but a lot of drivers in staging are getting no attention all. So they
are fully pointless and are not doing any good for Linux. We need to
send the vendors a clear message that code drops of their crappy Windows
code are not desired.

Regards

Marcel