2.6.32-git5+, CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV and Broadcom's driver for BCM4322 Wireless chips

2.6.32-git5+, CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV and Broadcom's driver for BCM4322 Wireless chips

[Alessandro Suardi]

Hi all,

 I use Broadcom's out-of-tree driver which is the only one that works with
 my Dell E6400's onboard BCM4322 wireless chip - driver here

 http://www.broadcom.com/support/802.11/linux_sta.php

 and the driver stopped building somewhere between 2.6.32-git1 and -git5,
 as CONFIG_WIRELESS_EXT is now replaced by CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT,
 but also as struct iw_handler_def (in <net/iw_handler.h>) has a few fields
 referenced by the driver that are now conditioned by CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV.

CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV isn't directly selectable during kernel config, but is
 rather picked up by wireless drivers via SELECT keywords in the Kconfig
 files - and this is my issue.

At the moment, after replacing all CONFIG_WIRELESS_EXT occurrences
 with CONFIG_CFG80211_WEXT in the Broadcom driver sources, I worked
 around the CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV issue by picking ipw2200 as a module
 in my kernel config - and ipw2200 is select'ing CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV; not
 an optimal solution, but this way my kernel has now support for a feature
 I do need later on when building the out-of-tree Broadcom module.

After rebooting into 2.6.32-git9 I successfully built the patched driver which
 loads fine and connects to my AP as usual - so the workaround seems ok.


But: what is the best option here to make CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV visible at
 kernel build time if only an external module should select it - but selection
 is not actually happening at kernel build time ?
Could CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV be made a separate user-selectable option ?


Thanks,

--alessandro

 "There's always a siren singing you to shipwreck"

   (Radiohead, "There There")

Re: 2.6.32-git5+, CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV and Broadcom's driver for BCM4322 Wireless chips

[Johannes Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 658 bytes --]

On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 16:40 +0100, Alessandro Suardi wrote:

> But: what is the best option here to make CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV visible at
>  kernel build time if only an external module should select it - but selection
>  is not actually happening at kernel build time ?
> Could CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV be made a separate user-selectable option ?

Your only option is selecting some other (ancient) driver that selects
WEXT_PRIV. We will not make that Kconfig symbol visible just because
Broadcom decided that they want to continue screwing their users :)

IOW -- there's no such option available to you at all. Select
PCMCIA_RAYCS or whatever.

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]

Re: 2.6.32-git5+, CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV and Broadcom's driver for BCM4322 Wireless chips

[Alessandro Suardi]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 16:40 +0100, Alessandro Suardi wrote:
>
>> But: what is the best option here to make CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV visible at
>>  kernel build time if only an external module should select it - but selection
>>  is not actually happening at kernel build time ?
>> Could CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV be made a separate user-selectable option ?
>
> Your only option is selecting some other (ancient) driver that selects
> WEXT_PRIV. We will not make that Kconfig symbol visible just because
> Broadcom decided that they want to continue screwing their users :)
>
> IOW -- there's no such option available to you at all. Select
> PCMCIA_RAYCS or whatever.

Thanks - you clipped the part of my message where I explain that my
 "workaround" has been to select IPW2200 :)

I'm aware of the implications of out-of-tree proprietary drivers, I just
 wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a better option than the one
 I resorted to.

Thanks again,

--alessandro

 "There's always a siren singing you to shipwreck"

   (Radiohead, "There There")

Re: 2.6.32-git5+, CONFIG_WEXT_PRIV and Broadcom's driver for BCM4322 Wireless chips

[Johannes Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 320 bytes --]

On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 14:36 +0100, Alessandro Suardi wrote:

> Thanks - you clipped the part of my message where I explain that my
>  "workaround" has been to select IPW2200 :)

Ah, sorry, I actually missed that completely. IPW2200 works just as
well, of course, RAYCS was just the first one I saw :)

johannes

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]