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 E637138DD5; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 11:45:33 +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=1707824735; cv=none; b=Wk5DJqZvh0+kioKDkheQ6fESHGzzKU+ymkhpqL3Nr3x97FGWauicOVfRoA2VsCFg39c90YQ/bTG5jmDKLK7W5ZrLfR/ObbqOt+HiRu0BDE/JtobRZ+/ABCA9eq4eL/5NEM14ut0wUbPKpO2ppnD8Yah9ulMsusHFf5aEEbX9R2Y= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1707824735; c=relaxed/simple; bh=nUCaYtxHdFB7BsZxrrtCEekTv3bK5CO8RmQpic8P8KA=; h=Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Type:MIME-Version; b=ZICm0lltNWPQ2cvjaCEJi8h+m8YjfyVS2nG/SqdEpGysH/4wYaoh+XfE8RI+jXfoQQ16ZESo2ScUNkmM/CVmow+bxppCYBV/y1Q65fxZ75h10th2hbJEoZ+RpeiMLKfex4YZ35yck8BPtMYuRvAXydo4BWiJBx9QEPPxP/x2eMg= 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=GWAL/zXk; 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="GWAL/zXk" 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=nUCaYtxHdFB7BsZxrrtCEekTv3bK5CO8RmQpic8P8KA=; t=1707824734; x=1709034334; b=GWAL/zXkPsF3SOP/4W8VKXIda7+9YkAZ+GTwrpxTH1Yz/KE 9MJCnqrvL5qg8IMUJJQO2CbaLcrdJy6lVA6yMRB3FZ0ggBcKW6u28t5nezar9i8h5fU0chQzRZSbY 24g9OOpy6MXCO7/7SbIf9VjMWnC6VxiJK068KnpytViNGeK39MRCf+vsT7yBNLWuzOs4lrvSKhl2t qw9nix6W3o7bfc5dpfl4bI4VLxjhWLi3+D6XK3zQ9fLcU6zUgA6MgNwcgXcFFuuhC4jSY0+ApMJor ArcmHP6KNG/UO86OW/+Rej06/My3ly2uaqMCiMjKKw0h1+sXwP3JA1q8FX5rDRGA==; Received: by sipsolutions.net with esmtpsa (TLS1.3:ECDHE_X25519__RSA_PSS_RSAE_SHA256__AES_256_GCM:256) (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1rZrEB-00000007en6-2Lnp; Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:45:31 +0100 Message-ID: <0cb1d7ef63ad1ea1ff4109d85a6bcdcaca16f1c8.camel@sipsolutions.net> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] wifi: nl80211: Add support for plumbing SAE groups to driver From: Johannes Berg To: Arend van Spriel , Kalle Valo , Vinayak Yadawad Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, jithu.jance@broadcom.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 12:45:30 +0100 In-Reply-To: References: <309965e8ef4d220053ca7e6bd34393f892ea1bb8.1707486287.git.vinayak.yadawad@broadcom.com> <87mss6f8jh.fsf@kernel.org> <2c38eaed47808a076b6986412f92bb955b0599c3.camel@sipsolutions.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 (3.50.3-1.fc39) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-malware-bazaar: not-scanned On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 12:13 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote: >=20 > I recall the rule was that nl80211 API changes=20 > should also have at least one driver implementing it. Guess we let that= =20 > slip a couple of times. I fully agree enforcing this.=C2=A0 Well, enforcing it strictly never really worked all that well in practice, since you don't necessarily want to have a complex driver implementation while hashing out the API, and the API fundamentally has to come first. So in a sense it comes down to trust, and that people will actually follow up with implementations. And yeah, plans can change and you end up not really supporting everything that was defined ... that's life, I guess. But the mode here seems to be that there's not even any _intent_ to do that? I guess we could hash out the API, review the patches, and then _not_ apply them until a driver is ready? So the first round of reviews would still come with API only, but once that settles we don't actually merge it immediately, unlike normally where we merge a patch we've reviewed? And then if whoever did it lost interest, we already have a reviewed version for anyone else who might need it? > FWIW I am actually=20 > planning on submitting brcmfmac patches to support=20 > NL80211_CMD_EXTERNAL_AUTH. Cool :) johannes