From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: Broadcom 43xx first results Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 15:09:19 -0500 Message-ID: <43949E6F.9050408@pobox.com> References: <20051205190038.04b7b7c1@griffin.suse.cz> <4394892D.2090100@gentoo.org> <20051205195543.5a2e2a8d@griffin.suse.cz> <4394902C.8060100@pobox.com> <20051205195329.GB19964@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jiri Benc , Joseph Jezak , mbuesch@freenet.de, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bcm43xx-dev@lists.berlios.de, NetDev Return-path: To: Dave Jones In-Reply-To: <20051205195329.GB19964@redhat.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Dave Jones wrote: > On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:08:28PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Jiri Benc wrote: > > >On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:38:37 -0500, Joseph Jezak wrote: > > > > > >>We're not writing an entire stack. We're writing a layer that sits in > > >>between the current ieee80211 stack that's already present in the kernel > > >>and drivers that do not have a hardware MAC. Since ieee80211 is already > > >>in use in the kernel today, this seemed like a natural and useful > > >>extension to the existing code. I agree that it's somewhat wasteful to > > >>keep rewriting 802.11 stacks and we considered other options, but it > > >>seemed like a more logical choice to work with what was available and > > >>recommended than to use an external stack. > > > > > > > > >Unfortunately, the only long-term solution is to rewrite completely the > > >current in-kernel ieee80211 code (I would not call it a "stack") or > > >replace it with something another. The current code was written for > > >Intel devices and it doesn't support anything else - so every developer > > > > Patently false. > > > > ieee80211 is used by Intel. Some bits used by HostAP, which also > > duplicates a lot of ieee80211 code. And bcm43xx. And another couple > > drivers found in -mm or out-of-tree. > > Orinoco also uses it now no ? Just the headers, really. Jeff