From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Wu Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] Add Regulatory Domain support to d80211 Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:52:52 -0400 Message-ID: <200610241853.03135.flamingice@sourmilk.net> References: <20061024140212.GB17543@devicescape.com> <43e72e890610241503r692975dfx65b2eab987ffbb3d@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart17605571.cZ7oibVg2U"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "Simon Barber" , "David Kimdon" , netdev@vger.kernel.org, "Jiri Benc" , "John W. Linville" , "Jean Tourrilhes" Return-path: Received: from smtp.rutgers.edu ([128.6.72.243]:64668 "EHLO annwn14.rutgers.edu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1422767AbWJXWyG (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:54:06 -0400 To: "Luis R. Rodriguez" In-Reply-To: <43e72e890610241503r692975dfx65b2eab987ffbb3d@mail.gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org --nextPart17605571.cZ7oibVg2U Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 24 October 2006 18:03, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > 1. Anyone working on completing FullMAC support on d80211? That doesn't really make sense. Fullmac devices should just use WE or cfg80= 211=20 because they, for the most part, do what d80211 does in firmware. There are= =20 also strange hybrid devices like ipw2100/ipw2200, but IMHO, it's not worth= =20 trying to bolt d80211 onto those devices unless saner firmware becomes=20 available. > 2. Who's working on a userspace MLME replacement for d80211 and where > are we with that? I think HostAP can handle authentication/association.. or was it=20 wpa-supplicant? Maybe both.. > 3. Who's doing the endianness/smp testing of d80211 and how far are we > with that? The endianness issues seemed fine the last time I checked, and people do se= em=20 to be testing BE enough that to uncover an endianness regression I introduc= ed=20 when converting WEP code to use crypto api. As for SMP/locking, I think Jir= i=20 Benc knows how to deal with this. > > Lastly, as I have said in previous e-mails -- I agree with a userspace > daemon but where is it and how long before its ready.. also it may be > difficult to introduce as a requirement for distributions and for this > reason I am suggesting going with in-kernel regulatory domain control > and now perhaps in-kernel MLME for a first stable push of d80211, > specially since only... 3 in-kernel drivers currently use d80211! > 4 once p54 is merged, and more to come as I get to them. /me pokes Linville. I think time working on the in-kernel MLME is well worth it since I would l= ike=20 softmac drivers to have feature parity with fullmac drivers. Anything beyon= d=20 that can go to userspace as far as I'm concerned. (so transitioning to d802= 11=20 based drivers won't involve too much pain unless you really want to take=20 advantage of new features) Having some basic regulatory domain control in d80211 in the kernel should = be=20 okay for now just to make sure all drivers like the api presented. Working= =20 out the details of how to move the d80211 side stuff to userspace should be= =20 orthogonal to the driver interface and can be dealt with later, IMHO.=20 =2DMichael Wu --nextPart17605571.cZ7oibVg2U Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFPplOT3Oqt9AH4aERAluGAJ9Sl+ogeSQ13RBC0/GpI+tJ1GbofgCfRh8y klRBc2uojemOkUGZslZWJjc= =uoGk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart17605571.cZ7oibVg2U--