From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail11.truemail.it (mail11.truemail.it [217.194.8.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B42A71C84D8 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 10:32:46 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742380369; cv=none; b=JGXSXe68UG5/2dOJR9E4imRRi9YnxtBS+hhXHO+zjrSbdI4HJSIJK3BIfhYDGS7zhBoLOdHZAt4xGTZ6eJX8nBCK+NCwBA+ietRxpopgYIl3e/NV6vrCbM6KPbu3f9sO6hIZLIHd8o1wjHnGfm1QmFY4QK39PRcY8Ni/5z10mYE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1742380369; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EyKu1GRMHHHkeHbzj9prH6F0ZcSiR75hC0bSERc6ieU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=uKOOkPXCGtVCSCTc7pBSEZGGdhuwT5C1aW2avpUe/PYaAc1GzFZsxhSKt1eHuX+E6G6Gfiv8OBvzkTP0uMiYnMkV/uijvKYkXhCUN6zGpS/xrjsT66YHQMDZVm2G52JxXEXWKGQ7gc3zOt8kiGDn2F8vJnvUafPyzPH54Vzrif4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b=gTnXr36f; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.194.8.81 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=dolcini.it Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=dolcini.it header.i=@dolcini.it header.b="gTnXr36f" Received: from francesco-nb (31-10-206-125.static.upc.ch [31.10.206.125]) by mail11.truemail.it (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 308781F842; Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:32:44 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dolcini.it; s=default; t=1742380364; bh=8xJPuXWBtnG1ePsRuOyQYAQwH+niFJ/ACBBCpmimWmw=; h=From:To:Subject; b=gTnXr36fwmP3gNRQ1ArANfSfZ5pc2ApM6/pZo4iJdPtS/GT/EmKM9PXik2ia7I5xN JVVWKslzMkTTJRYT5+63+vmKy2EtueghJDHjyxi907/HWyd2+Ad/V7yGQcxAqF+U7X 1Bia5dfyZJRvm61PpfnThGJKRKrztfb5dSRR9+JKjN7+QA3mfwryV30kHPHgP4xF0T SPKkTRckOIjkwJnIo4Vmy2H+HFqG4WfuvFsriOXnu+TSd4t5TliOHP+Dk+BI1aBS2E nxPTimCowKVvmugAVE8vGNvK/1TmXlRCK4bue/W1ZtbW4l0qcoHLT6cKqOpDvTx6HJ s3w1v2Hd4DSGg== Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2025 11:32:40 +0100 From: Francesco Dolcini To: Sascha Hauer Cc: Francesco Dolcini , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, David Lin , Brian Norris , Johannes Berg , kernel@pengutronix.de, Jeff Chen , tsung-hsien.hsieh@nxp.com, Stefan Roese Subject: Re: Future of mwifiex driver Message-ID: <20250319103240.GA21390@francesco-nb> References: <20250306101715.GA19853@francesco-nb> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Fri, Mar 07, 2025 at 11:10:21AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2025 at 11:17:15AM +0100, Francesco Dolcini wrote: > > + Jeff Chen , tsung-hsien.hsieh@nxp.com > > + Stefan Roese > > > > On Mon, Mar 03, 2025 at 12:05:26PM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote: > > > I am worried about the future of the mwifiex driver. NXP has an ongoing > > > effort of forking the driver to support their new chips, but the forked > > > driver lacks support for the old chips supported by the current mwifiex > > > driver. > > > > > > Overall this leaves us and our customers using the mwifiex driver in a > > > very bad situation. Johannes made clear that he is not going to merge a > > > driver that is 70% identical to the existing driver and on the other > > > hand the existing driver doesn't get forward due to its odd-fixes state > > > and the potential rise of a new driver which would render work on the > > > existing driver useless. > > > > While I agree on the challenging situation, I would not call it "very > > bad" ... as you know there are multiple people with stake on this driver > > (I added SR in Cc here, that I just discovered has some interested on > > this). > > > > In the short term I think that improving mwifiex driver is going to be > > beneficial for everybody, currently this is not going as smooth as we'd > > like, as you wrote and as already commented by Brian. > > > > And the next step would be to figure out how to enable newer Wi-Fi chip > > solution from NXP in mainline, we all have our ideas and we are not > > moving forward. NXP keeps pushing for a solution that was already > > rejected multiple times and so far it was not successful on explaining > > why this is the correct way forward. Here I would agree that the > > situation is "very bad" at the moment. > > I have a patch adding iw61x support to the mwifiex driver. Maybe if I > send that for inclusion we can get NXP to explain to us what's actually > missing in this patch to properly support it. I would have HW available to test it, and not just review the code, looking forward to it. Francesco