From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from devils.ext.ti.com ([198.47.26.153]:57143 "EHLO devils.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753835Ab0K3JF4 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2010 04:05:56 -0500 Message-ID: <4CF4BE87.5060307@ti.com> Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 11:06:15 +0200 From: Shahar Levi MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luciano Coelho CC: ext Ohad Ben-Cohen , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 ] wl12xx: BA Initiator support References: <1291038135-20672-1-git-send-email-shahar_levi@ti.com> <1291097500.1673.100.camel@powerslave> <1291101352.1673.112.camel@powerslave> In-Reply-To: <1291101352.1673.112.camel@powerslave> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11/30/2010 09:15 AM, Luciano Coelho wrote: > On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 23:07 -0800, ext Ohad Ben-Cohen wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 10:11 PM, Luciano Coelho >> wrote: >> ... >>> In theory the API *has* changed, not just extended. Check this: >>> >>> - ACX_BA_SESSION_RESPONDER_POLICY = 0x0055, >>> - ACX_BA_SESSION_INITIATOR_POLICY = 0x0056, >>> + ACX_BA_SESSION_POLICY_CFG = 0x0055, >>> + ACX_BA_SESSION_RX_SETUP = 0x0056, >>> >>> But in practice, this doesn't matter, because we were not using the >>> RESPONDER/INITIATOR commands before... >> >> Right. So an old driver will still work with this new firmware. >> >>> It's basically just those two extra commands that were added. And one >>> new event that is part of a future patch. >>> >>> In theory, we could check the firmware revision after boot and bail out >>> if the version doesn't match. >> >> Why not just disable BA sessions in this case (and keep that new event >> masked), and let the driver keep running (just like it does today) ? >> >> This way the new driver will work even with the old firmware (yes, >> with degraded functionality, but most random ppl will just not care), >> and of course, the old driver will keep working with the new firmware. >> >> For us developers who lurk in linux-wireless it seems like a trivial >> change, but if we consider the growing size of the 12xx community, and >> the long period of time for which such a change will be effective (ppl >> upgrading to latest compat, ppl that will one day upgrade to 2.6.38, >> future ppl that will bisect and cross this firmware name change, >> etc...), it's actually a lot of accumulated pain. >> >> To keep our community happy, I vote to eliminate this pain when not necessary. > > Hear, hear! > > Shahar, can you fix that? Yes, will do. Shahar