From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sipsolutions.net (s3.sipsolutions.net [168.119.38.16]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2838381A1; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:12:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710925970; cv=none; b=rny5KatR5E4aShbaBsTaDJ1lTrIwobT9Oa52P+14C3kjXcWwZ0Xx+q00ACs1IiDKeNwFXNm/bZwR+tfFYR/CQQroww7Wqr/L4dWWpL7GXnYZ8L3xHPnh8MFTXrtxYzz1/k2cZCfuBUmR+hdtZWPoOHEzgxkQJbLp8+V0GsYbTgo= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1710925970; c=relaxed/simple; bh=+cQOlbmIo4jx4EXb7qfz4OBixcqEIrAG4ITC5AbEzzQ=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=s7JzZfR2pq+L0SaXEkulrlnhtVy5qWHxLl4m4cR6p3wuiRiW2E0o7hnvqr9J2rbC5Yw28gm6+ywvHMWAfo93Mh3bRSiN9pAn3fzNImXAhHfJMsIBMWwusWgkzOUKNsZlr13BCkqC4b83TBWFPmFlEu9tPuptjNP/AoURG2FtUNQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b=uZW7+ZCG; arc=none smtp.client-ip=168.119.38.16 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=sipsolutions.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=sipsolutions.net header.i=@sipsolutions.net header.b="uZW7+ZCG" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sipsolutions.net; s=mail; h=MIME-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:References:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:To:From:Subject:Message-ID:Sender :Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-To: Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=+cQOlbmIo4jx4EXb7qfz4OBixcqEIrAG4ITC5AbEzzQ=; t=1710925969; x=1712135569; b=uZW7+ZCGBcDkwTsfFtJiyFeYgkVbl5iMuW66g7VGfLex9nh g8gkQ2lavOhO0lLQBh1jAALO8ouNlMRhtxa7igiMeRXCpZPo9bhmxC0gxTMAMftHpEbwryKmixXFC iwQk8+BV3ufr5dQdLQml6vJfrBJNBjRPK4txH4eyodv0FrjK18PycwalQVue57vLl70+K0rg2IJdB s8DrQgb+yRuMEI7ldhnaT391KBvKtJ66iR4zms6An8tUtV2u+L+9QgP4kSByAgNuEDBVFD1b0mv2f AgPIVHCLVsk98ZFJQJv9Wa3Ml0Py/Pvc2aU4sHBAX5z4dmcX8frkGJPVQw9fnO1w==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rms06-00000006u2O-1aY8; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:12:46 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [PATCH v9 0/2] wifi: mwifiex: add code to support host mlme From: Johannes Berg To: David Lin , Brian Norris , Francesco Dolcini Cc: "kvalo@kernel.org" , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Pete Hsieh , "rafael.beims" , Francesco Dolcini Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:12:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <20240306020053.18054-1-yu-hao.lin@nxp.com> <20240315094927.GA6624@francesco-nb> <969e95ccc4a1d35b45212b7fcb536ee90995e3b5.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.4 (3.50.4-1.fc39) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Wed, 2024-03-20 at 01:10 +0000, David Lin wrote: > > >=20 > > > Also decl.h should probably _shrink_ rather than grow, a number of > > > things just replicate ieee80211.h (such as MWIFIEX_MGMT_HEADER_LEN > > > really is just > > > sizeof(ieee80211_mgmt) or so? Not quite correctly.) > > >=20 > >=20 > > This can be done for feature patches. But this is a feature patch :-) > > > So yeah, agree with Brian, not only would this be the first, but it's > > > also something we don't really _want_. All other drivers that want > > > stuff like this are stuck in staging ... > > >=20 > > > So why is this needed for a supposedly "firmware does it all" driver, > > > and why can it not be integrated with mac80211 if it's no longer "fir= mware > > does it all"? > > >=20 > > > Johannes > >=20 > > Our proprietary driver is cfg80211 driver, it is very hard to create a = brand new > > mac80211 driver and still can port all tested stuffs from our proprieta= ry driver. That basically doesn't matter for upstream at all. >=20 > BTW, vendor should have the choice to use cfg80211 or mac80211 for their = chips, right? No, that's not how it works. The choice should be what makes sense architecturally. johannes