[PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

This updates the mac80211 kconfig entry to clarify
what it is and refer people to our wireless wiki for
more documentation.

Cc: Jouni Malinen <j@w1.fi>
Cc: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@atheros.com>
---

Changed description of when built as a module as pointed out
by Larry.

 net/mac80211/Kconfig |   19 ++++++++++++++++---
 1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/mac80211/Kconfig b/net/mac80211/Kconfig
index 9db4ff8..72006f9 100644
--- a/net/mac80211/Kconfig
+++ b/net/mac80211/Kconfig
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 config MAC80211
-	tristate "Generic IEEE 802.11 Networking Stack (mac80211)"
+	tristate "mac80211 - SoftMAC device support"
 	depends on CFG80211
 	select CRYPTO
 	select CRYPTO_ECB
@@ -7,8 +7,21 @@ config MAC80211
 	select CRYPTO_AES
 	select CRC32
 	---help---
-	  This option enables the hardware independent IEEE 802.11
-	  networking stack.
+	  This option enables support for a framework used by IEEE-802.11
+	  SoftMAC devices. SoftMAC devices allow for a finer control of the
+	  hardware, allowing for 802.11 frame management to be done in software
+	  for them, for both parsing and generation of 802.11 wireless frames.
+	  Most 802.11 devices today tend to be of this type.
+
+	  If you have new userspace utitlities which support nl80211 you do not
+	  need wireless-extensions to support a mac80211 device.
+
+	  For more information refer the the wireless wiki entry on mac80211:
+
+	  http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/Documentation/mac80211
+
+	  When built as a module it will be called as mac80211, if not sure
+	  you should build this as a module.
 
 comment "CFG80211 needs to be enabled for MAC80211"
 	depends on CFG80211=n
-- 
1.6.3.3

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Jouni Malinen]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:54:25AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> This updates the mac80211 kconfig entry to clarify
> what it is and refer people to our wireless wiki for
> more documentation.

> diff --git a/net/mac80211/Kconfig b/net/mac80211/Kconfig

> -	tristate "Generic IEEE 802.11 Networking Stack (mac80211)"
> +	tristate "mac80211 - SoftMAC device support"

Uh.. Do we really need to call this SoftMAC or well have that in the
title? I prefer the current text or if you want to, just move the
mac80211 into the beginning..


> +	  This option enables support for a framework used by IEEE-802.11

s/IEEE-802.11/IEEE 802.11/

> +	  SoftMAC devices. SoftMAC devices allow for a finer control of the

Again, I don't really like the term "SoftMAC" here..

> +	  hardware, allowing for 802.11 frame management to be done in software
> +	  for them, for both parsing and generation of 802.11 wireless frames.
> +	  Most 802.11 devices today tend to be of this type.

s/802.11/IEEE 802.11/g

> +	  If you have new userspace utitlities which support nl80211 you do not

s/utitlities/utilities/

> +	  need wireless-extensions to support a mac80211 device.

s/wireless-extensions/wireless extensions/

> +	  When built as a module it will be called as mac80211, if not sure
> +	  you should build this as a module.

s/, if/. If/

-- 
Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Gábor Stefanik]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Jouni Malinen<j@w1.fi> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:54:25AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> This updates the mac80211 kconfig entry to clarify
>> what it is and refer people to our wireless wiki for
>> more documentation.
>
>> diff --git a/net/mac80211/Kconfig b/net/mac80211/Kconfig
>
>> -     tristate "Generic IEEE 802.11 Networking Stack (mac80211)"
>> +     tristate "mac80211 - SoftMAC device support"
>
> Uh.. Do we really need to call this SoftMAC or well have that in the
> title? I prefer the current text or if you want to, just move the
> mac80211 into the beginning..
>
>
>> +       This option enables support for a framework used by IEEE-802.11
>
> s/IEEE-802.11/IEEE 802.11/
>
>> +       SoftMAC devices. SoftMAC devices allow for a finer control of the
>
> Again, I don't really like the term "SoftMAC" here..
>
>> +       hardware, allowing for 802.11 frame management to be done in software
>> +       for them, for both parsing and generation of 802.11 wireless frames.
>> +       Most 802.11 devices today tend to be of this type.
>
> s/802.11/IEEE 802.11/g
>
>> +       If you have new userspace utitlities which support nl80211 you do not
>
> s/utitlities/utilities/
>
>> +       need wireless-extensions to support a mac80211 device.
>
> s/wireless-extensions/wireless extensions/
>
>> +       When built as a module it will be called as mac80211, if not sure
>> +       you should build this as a module.
>
> s/, if/. If/

Also, s/called as/called/

>
> --
> Jouni Malinen                                            PGP id EFC895FA
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>



-- 
Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:33:00AM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:54:25AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > This updates the mac80211 kconfig entry to clarify
> > what it is and refer people to our wireless wiki for
> > more documentation.
> 
> > diff --git a/net/mac80211/Kconfig b/net/mac80211/Kconfig
> 
> > -     tristate "Generic IEEE 802.11 Networking Stack (mac80211)"
> > +     tristate "mac80211 - SoftMAC device support"
> 
> Uh.. Do we really need to call this SoftMAC or well have that in the
> title? 

I was hoping this would clarify to users a little more on what this really
was instead of referring it as a generic "IEEE 802.11 stack". For example,
I'd expect a few users to be a bit puzzled why a cfg80211 driver did not make
use of the "IEEE 802.11 stack".

> I prefer the current text or if you want to, just move the
> mac80211 into the beginning..

I am not sure if this would be clear to users, as cfg80211 grows driver
support I think a clearer distinction would help. But then again that's just
my thoughts on this.

An alternative to accomplish what I want to do -- which is to educate users --
is to keep just change this as you suggest as:

"mac80211 - IEEE 802.11 Networking Stack"

but then also educate that a "IEEE 802.11 Networking Stack" is only required for
certain types of devices. This still seems a bit confusing to me though.

Would like your opinion on how to best educate users on this taxonomy.

> > +       This option enables support for a framework used by IEEE-802.11
> 
> s/IEEE-802.11/IEEE 802.11/
> 
> > +       SoftMAC devices. SoftMAC devices allow for a finer control of the
> 
> Again, I don't really like the term "SoftMAC" here..

What's a better term?

> > +       hardware, allowing for 802.11 frame management to be done in software
> > +       for them, for both parsing and generation of 802.11 wireless frames.
> > +       Most 802.11 devices today tend to be of this type.
> 
> s/802.11/IEEE 802.11/g
> 
> > +       If you have new userspace utitlities which support nl80211 you do not
> 
> s/utitlities/utilities/
> 
> > +       need wireless-extensions to support a mac80211 device.
> 
> s/wireless-extensions/wireless extensions/
> 
> > +       When built as a module it will be called as mac80211, if not sure
> > +       you should build this as a module.
> 
> s/, if/. If/

Thanks for the review, will fix the typos, and will re-send after further feedback on
the taxonomy.

  Luis

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:28:35AM -0700, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:33:00AM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:54:25AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> > +       SoftMAC devices. SoftMAC devices allow for a finer control of the
> >>
> >> Again, I don't really like the term "SoftMAC" here..
> >
> > What's a better term?
> >
> 
> "Software-based", "Software-MAC", "Software-defined", or anything that
> neither implies that the stack is designed for PrismGT (the
> capitalization "SoftMAC" comes from Intersil AFAIK), nor allows
> confusion with ieee80211softmac (which could result if we write it
> with all small letters as "softmac").

Indeed, I picked up 'SoftMAC' and 'FullMAC' terminology from the prism54 days
after they decided to move in that direction as others were or already had. For
better or for worse I have been using 'SoftMAC' throughout wireless.kernel.org
documentation to distinguish between 'FullMAC' cards. I really have not been
able to find any other suitable replacements, are there legal reasons to not use
such terms?

I thought 'mac80211' name was brilliant as it highlighted the main focus for the
module, to focus on the MAC frame processing, I just cannot think of any
description for it other than something to support SoftMAC cards.

  Luis

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Gábor Stefanik]

2009/9/1 Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@atheros.com>:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:28:35AM -0700, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:33:00AM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>> >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:54:25AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> >> > +       SoftMAC devices. SoftMAC devices allow for a finer control of the
>> >>
>> >> Again, I don't really like the term "SoftMAC" here..
>> >
>> > What's a better term?
>> >
>>
>> "Software-based", "Software-MAC", "Software-defined", or anything that
>> neither implies that the stack is designed for PrismGT (the
>> capitalization "SoftMAC" comes from Intersil AFAIK), nor allows
>> confusion with ieee80211softmac (which could result if we write it
>> with all small letters as "softmac").
>
> Indeed, I picked up 'SoftMAC' and 'FullMAC' terminology from the prism54 days
> after they decided to move in that direction as others were or already had. For
> better or for worse I have been using 'SoftMAC' throughout wireless.kernel.org
> documentation to distinguish between 'FullMAC' cards. I really have not been
> able to find any other suitable replacements, are there legal reasons to not use
> such terms?
>
> I thought 'mac80211' name was brilliant as it highlighted the main focus for the
> module, to focus on the MAC frame processing, I just cannot think of any
> description for it other than something to support SoftMAC cards.

The description isn't the problem - the term "SoftMAC" is, due to its
connections with ieee80211softmac. Even "Software MAC" would be better
here.

>
>  Luis
>



-- 
Vista: [V]iruses, [I]ntruders, [S]pyware, [T]rojans and [A]dware. :-)

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:47:43AM -0700, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
> 2009/9/1 Luis R. Rodriguez <lrodriguez@atheros.com>:
> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:28:35AM -0700, Gábor Stefanik wrote:
> >> On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 7:18 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez<lrodriguez@atheros.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 09:33:00AM -0700, Jouni Malinen wrote:
> >> >> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 08:54:25AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> >> >> > +       SoftMAC devices. SoftMAC devices allow for a finer control of the
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, I don't really like the term "SoftMAC" here..
> >> >
> >> > What's a better term?
> >> >
> >>
> >> "Software-based", "Software-MAC", "Software-defined", or anything that
> >> neither implies that the stack is designed for PrismGT (the
> >> capitalization "SoftMAC" comes from Intersil AFAIK), nor allows
> >> confusion with ieee80211softmac (which could result if we write it
> >> with all small letters as "softmac").
> >
> > Indeed, I picked up 'SoftMAC' and 'FullMAC' terminology from the prism54 days
> > after they decided to move in that direction as others were or already had. For
> > better or for worse I have been using 'SoftMAC' throughout wireless.kernel.org
> > documentation to distinguish between 'FullMAC' cards. I really have not been
> > able to find any other suitable replacements, are there legal reasons to not use
> > such terms?
> >
> > I thought 'mac80211' name was brilliant as it highlighted the main focus for the
> > module, to focus on the MAC frame processing, I just cannot think of any
> > description for it other than something to support SoftMAC cards.
> 
> The description isn't the problem - the term "SoftMAC" is, due to its
> connections with ieee80211softmac. Even "Software MAC" would be better
> here.

Software MAC sounds reasonable to me. Anyone else?

  Luis

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[John W. Linville]

On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 11:01:47AM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 01, 2009 at 10:47:43AM -0700, Gábor Stefanik wrote:

> > The description isn't the problem - the term "SoftMAC" is, due to its
> > connections with ieee80211softmac. Even "Software MAC" would be better
> > here.
> 
> Software MAC sounds reasonable to me. Anyone else?

Seems fine -- IMHO "soft MAC" would be fine as well...

-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Johannes Berg]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 223 bytes --]

On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 11:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:

> Software MAC sounds reasonable to me. Anyone else?

Except we're not actually talking about the MAC at all. The MAC is still
in the hardware.

johannes

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

Re: [PATCH v2 6/7] wireless: update mac80211 kconfig entry

[Luis R. Rodriguez]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Johannes Berg<johannes@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-01 at 11:01 -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>
>> Software MAC sounds reasonable to me. Anyone else?
>
> Except we're not actually talking about the MAC at all. The MAC is still
> in the hardware.

How how about just:

"mac80211 - IEEE 802.11 frame processing"

Then as for referring to these type of devices I am not aware of other
vocabulary for them other than SoftMAC or its derivative names.

  Luis