Re: P2P support in brcmfmac

["John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:51:15PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 08:44 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:34:58PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 08:22 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:51:35PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > In 3.9 we introduced P2P support in brcmfmac which was functional using
> > > > > current wpa_supplicant P2P support, but we did not yet support the
> > > > > P2P_DEVICE user-space API.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Last week I enabled that in brcmfmac testing it with wpa_supplicant
> > > > > patches for P2P_DEVICE support from David Spinadel. So I do have a
> > > > > couple of brcmfmac patches to make that work and would like to submit
> > > > > those for 3.9 although it is not strictly a bug fix. Would you consider
> > > > > taking these?
> > > > 
> > > > That doesn't sound to me like something that would be worthy of such
> > > > an exception.
> > > 
> > > Maybe just make a small patch to disable the other API, so we don't end
> > > up having to support both?
> > 
> > Maybe I misunderstood.  So brcmfmac currently supports a P2P API
> > that is not otherwise available and which we don't want to support
> > in the future?
> 
> As I understand it, brcmfmac currently supports having a P2P device
> *netdev*, which is of (wireless) type STATION (presumably), which isn't
> something we want to support (well, I don't anyway, it's difficult to
> discover for applications).
> 
> The "correct" way (the way I decided to implement this P2P device
> concept in the upstreamtree ) is to have a P2P device *wireless dev*
> which has no netdev associated -- this makes more sense since no data
> frames are ever transmitted or received on a P2P device.
> 
> As I understand Arend, he was suggesting to put patches into 3.9 that
> would move brcmfmac from the interim API with a netdev he had used for
> testing to the final API that is actually implemented in 3.9 but before
> the wpa_supplicant patches had no way to get used. Now those patches are
> there in wpa_supplicant though (or well, on their way in)

I see...in that case, a patch that disables the interim API seems appropriate.

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