Re: ipw3945 status

[Jan Dittmer <jdi@l4x.org>]

Theodore Tso schrieb:
> Personally, I don't see why the requirement of an external daemon is
> really considered that evil.  We allow drivers that depend on firmware

Well the problem is more the fear that when one vendor gets this in
the tree all others will follow. And there'll be several
incompatible userspace daemons for every possible wireless card which
you need to get the system to work (think boot cd, install over wlan).

So if this is done, there should be a clearly abstracted interface
for such a daemon. I don't see what the daemon is doing more than
echo 1 4 7 8 > /sys/.../allowed_channels and a control circuit for
tx/rx power.

> loaders, don't we?  I could imagine a device that required a digitally
> signed message (using RSA) with a challenge/response protocol embedded
> inside that was necessary to configure said device, which is
> calculated in userspace and then passed down into the kernel to be
> installed into the device so that it could function.  Do we really
> want to consider that to be objectionable?

If it's done via a standard interface as the firmware loading
is, no objection.

Jan