From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-path: Received: from mail-iw0-f174.google.com ([209.85.214.174]:60641 "EHLO mail-iw0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752737Ab0HBFby (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 01:31:54 -0400 Received: by iwn7 with SMTP id 7so3805036iwn.19 for ; Sun, 01 Aug 2010 22:31:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <201008021259.16623.br1@einfach.org> References: <20100727094732.27186.30900.stgit@tt-desk> <201007291111.27417.br1@einfach.org> <201008021259.16623.br1@einfach.org> From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" Date: Sun, 1 Aug 2010 22:31:32 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/3] cfg80211: Add nl80211 antenna configuration To: Bruno Randolf Cc: Felix Fietkau , johannes@sipsolutions.net, linville@tuxdriver.com, linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Aug 1, 2010 at 8:59 PM, Bruno Randolf wrote: > On Fri July 30 2010 00:09:17 you wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Bruno Randolf wrote: >> > i already tried to explain several times why FIXED_A, FIXED_B, or >> > DIVERSITY is not enough even for "legacy". please re-read the mails and >> > the description of the first patch - i really don't want to re-iterate >> > it *again*. thanks :) >> >> What legacy device and respective device driver do we support upstream >> on the kernel that has this sort of extra antenna setup? Do you >> foresee this happening? > > right now, probably none. but it's easy to this to ath5k. madwifi supported it > and it's just a matter of setting tx and rx antennas (it's already there as > AR5K_ANTMODE_DEBUG). i might add it, just to make my case... ;) > > anyhow, i can see your point of view now. but while you might not care about > anything before 802.11n - there are millions of what you call 'legacy' chips > out there (and you guys are actually still selling them!), so i think it's > worth it to properly support them, especially since i still believe that my > proposal is usable for both 802.11n and before. I am not saying to drop legacy support I am saying to just support legacy via the two standard antenna model because there is nothing visible being supported which I think merits expanding a simple API for legacy. Luis