From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arend van Spriel Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "ipw2200: select CFG80211_WEXT" Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2015 23:13:09 +0100 Message-ID: <54AB0C75.1090204@broadcom.com> References: <1420297188.2397.3.camel@tiscali.nl> <1420324124.9624.60.camel@x220> <54AA641C.7050307@broadcom.com> <1420479510.14308.23.camel@x220> (sfid-20150105_183907_807502_81C08416) <1420484224.9459.16.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1420495519.14308.29.camel@x220> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Johannes Berg , Linus Torvalds , Marcel Holtmann , Stanislav Yakovlev , Kalle Valo , Jiri Kosina , linux-wireless , Network Development , Linux Kernel Mailing List To: Paul Bolle Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1420495519.14308.29.camel@x220> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org On 01/05/15 23:05, Paul Bolle wrote: > On Mon, 2015-01-05 at 19:57 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote: >> Multiple other groups of ioctls could be converted in similar patches, >> until at the end you can completely remove ipw_wx_handlers and rely >> entirely on cfg80211's wext compatibility. >> >> So far the theory - in practice nobody cared enough to start working on >> any of these drivers, let alone actually has the hardware today. > > So my suggestion to make ipw2200 no longer use cfg80211_wext_giwname() > would actually be backwards. What's actually needed, in theory, is to > use more of what's provided under CFG80211_WEXT (and, I guess, less of > what's provided under WIRELESS_EXT). Did I get that right? Yes, but as Johannes indicated it needs consideration what to group in the patches. Regards, Arend > Thanks, > > > Paul Bolle >