Re: [PATCH] Revert "cfg80211: make WEXT compatibility unselectable"

[Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>]

On 01/01/15 11:56, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> Arend van Spriel wrote:
>> On 12/31/14 16:14, Andreas Hartmann wrote:
> [...]
>>> All in all:
>>> If you want to get rid of wext, you still have to go a *very* long way
>>> to get the same *stable* and high throughput quality with *all* chips
>>> depending on mac80211 and not just a few flagship drivers like Atheros.
>>
>> Hi Andreas,
>>
>> That's a nice list of unrelated stuff. This has all nothing to do with
>> WEXT. Actually, you can build rt5572sta with cfg80211 support
>> (RT_CFG80211_SUPPORT).
>
> You seem to know sources I don't know off. Could you please tell me,
> where to find them?
>
> I have DPO_RT5572_LinuxSTA_2.6.0.1_20120629 which doesn't compile with
> HAS_CFG80211_SUPPORT=y because -DCONFIG_AP_SUPPORT, on which
> RT_CFG80211_SUPPORT relies, is broken.
>
> DPO_RT5572_LinuxSTA_2.6.1.3_20121022 removed the necessary broken AP
> code completely.

Nice.

>> This thread is about the configuration API and
>> not about driver performance.
>
> I know.
>
> I tried to show, why WEXT as a whole is still necessary even if there is
> a mac80211 based driver, because of the weakness of rt2800usb:
> Nip it in the bud.

Yes. WEXT needs to stay for a while. Not arguing that. Just saying this 
is really about cfg80211 providing "WEXT compatibility" so WEXT 
user-space apps can interact with cfg80211-based drivers and how to come 
up with a plan to phase out "WEXT compatibility", not WEXT.

Regards,
Arend

> Kind regards,
> Andreas