From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Inaky Perez-Gonzalez Subject: Re: [PATCH 15/39] i2400m: host-to-device protocol definitions Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 18:06:53 -0800 Message-ID: <200812021806.54231.inaky@linux.intel.com> References: <1227780265.3809.55.camel@johannes.berg> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev To: Johannes Berg Return-path: Received: from mga07.intel.com ([143.182.124.22]:39507 "EHLO azsmga101.ch.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752963AbYLCCL2 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Dec 2008 21:11:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1227780265.3809.55.camel@johannes.berg> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thursday 27 November 2008, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-26 at 15:07 -0800, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote: > > +/* Message types */ > > +enum i2400m_mt { > > + I2400M_MT_RESERVED = 0x0000, > > + I2400M_MT_INVALID = 0xffff, > ... > > + I2400M_MT_REPORT_EAP_RESTART = 0xe003, > > + I2400M_MT_REPORT_ALT_ACCEPT = 0xe004, > > + I2400M_MT_REPORT_KEY_REQUEST = 0xe005, > > Since this is all device-specific, this is like implementing all of > 802.11 management with iwpriv. No it is not -- management is done at the device level; disconnect WiFi, because this is completely different. > Do you really want that? Why wouldn't most of these commands port > over to other hardware? As explained on the first message, vendors might choose to break the hw interface at a different level. We won't force vendors to use the same interface as the Intel device does or make the same design decisions we made. -- Inaky