Re: [PATCH 00/39] merge request for WiMAX kernel stack and i2400m driver v2

[Inaky Perez-Gonzalez <inaky@linux.intel.com>]

On Thursday 04 December 2008, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 18:07 -0800, Inaky Perez-Gonzalez wrote:
> > For scanning, some devices require to be told exactly where to scan in
> > (as in which combination of band, fft width and coloring of the
> > band). Some others don't.
>
> But things like these are fairly easy to cover, just allow netlink
> attributes to specify where to scan, and allow drivers to disregard
> them, no harm caused. Maybe include a capability bit, like I'm adding to
> nl80211 in my scanning patch (not included yet) that includes a
> capability for how many SSIDs it can scan actively at once.

The implementation details are not the problem, there I totally agree
with you. The problem is how to establish the cutline. What you are saying
is exactly how I envision it to happen and the direction I'd like it to
take, but I just don't want to do it until at least we have two vendors
talking.

> > Then of course, the scan results might be
> > operators? Network Service Providers? Network Access Providers?  base
> > station IDs? how do you stitch'em together? You need information to
> > map from one to the other, and that is device specific depending on at
> > which level they work. How to stich that information together depends
> > on the network too (OMA-DM and provisining information help to compose
> > this). If it is done at the device/firmware level or at the host level
> > is device specific.
>
> I have no idea about these things, obviously. But what's wrong with just
> defining the scan operation with netlink attributes as you need them now
> (say the scan returns NSPs) and then later when somebody needs to return
> NAPs add a new attribute? Userspace will easily be able to figure out
> which one it got by looking at which attributes are present.

Call me chicken :) [more below]

> > Connect has exactly the same levels of issues as scan: what do I
> > connect to? A base station? a NAP or an NSP?
> >
> > So back to the original question: I have no information to define such
> > an interface at low level, so I am not defining it. Simple :/
>
> Here's where I disagree, obviously, I think you should at least define a
> subset of the imaginable interface, which is, in my opinion, _much_
> better than defining no interface at all and hoping for the next guy to
> figure it out, which is unlikely to happen when you haven't started with
> something the next guy can understand.

No wait, I don't want guy #2 to define it--I want to work together to define
it, to make sure it works for him and for me without having to throw to
the garbage something I did on my own that won't work.

> > > This really means you're putting the actual "driver", the piece that
> > > does the hardware abstraction, into userspace. And in a binary daemon
> > > even, afaict. This was quickly shot down with ipw3945/4965, not sure
> > > why nobody has cared here so far. Maybe because you're actually
> > > planning to open source that part.
> >
> > Nope. I am putting the part that knows how to scan and connect in user
> > space because it does not belong in kernel space. It is big and complex,
> > needs permanent storage, requires complex crypto code and can really
> > use a OMA-DM client to communicate with the network.
>
> Ok, I guess that makes sense then, I'm not aware of all the details.
>
> > Not a binary, btw. Currently the supplicant is a binary, but that will
> > change. The OMA-DM client daemon is also a binary as of now and we
> > are still thinking how to fix that situation, as there are no open
> > source equivalents. Luckily, it is kind of optional.
>
> Ok, thanks for the explanation.
>
> johannes



-- 
Inaky