Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: Linux: Kernel

Broadcom 43xx first results

 

 

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Linux kernel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


hch at infradead

Dec 5, 2005, 11:41 AM

Post #26 of 62 (5178 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 08:31:21PM +0100, Jiri Benc wrote:
> > And Joseph &
> > friends are writing a module to support softmac cards in that framework,
> > which is one of the most urgently needed things right now, because all the
> > existing softmac frameworks don't work with that code.
>
> And authors of rtl8180 did it too. And authors of adm8211 too.

None of them made it into the kernel tree. As soon as we'll have an
acceptable one everyone will have to use and improve it. I personally
couldn't care less what we start with.

> > And please stop your stupid devicespace advertisements. If you think the
> > code is so useful why don't you send patches to integrate it with the
> > currently existing wireless code (after cleaning up the horrible mess
> > it is currently)?
>
> This is what I'm doing last two months. But it's not so easy to clean it
> up and it seems that nobody else is interested. But it has all of the
> features you need (except active scanning) - this is the reason I
> stopped to work on improving current in-kernel 802.11 code and focused
> on Devicescape's code. It is several years beyond the state that current
> code is at now. And it is not an advertisement, it is a fact.

That's because you still don't get how we do development. The last thing
we want is full-scale rewrites. Submit patches to fix things based on
whatever you want but do it incremental. Anything that just moves existing
functionaly out of the place and adds duplicates with more functionality/
cleaner API/<buzzword of the day> is simply not acceptable.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


davej at redhat

Dec 5, 2005, 11:53 AM

Post #27 of 62 (5178 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

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 ?

Dave

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jgarzik at pobox

Dec 5, 2005, 12:09 PM

Post #28 of 62 (5188 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

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



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jbenc at suse

Dec 5, 2005, 12:11 PM

Post #29 of 62 (5184 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:41:46 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> None of them made it into the kernel tree. As soon as we'll have an
> acceptable one everyone will have to use and improve it. I personally
> couldn't care less what we start with.

Same with me.

> That's because you still don't get how we do development. The last thing
> we want is full-scale rewrites. Submit patches to fix things based on
> whatever you want but do it incremental.

We have got almost finished and working stack. Everything we need to do
is:
1. identify issues;
2. fix the issues; some of them will need broader discussion;
3. split it into several (potentially a lot of) reviewable patches;
4. clean up the drivers.

I'm in phase 2 now (no interesting results yet). I don't think it is
possible to start by phase 3 and then skip back to 1 and 2... This is
the reason I didn't post anything yet (or did you see some bloated
everything-rewriting patch from me posted on the list?).

But I also don't think it is worth effort to reinvent wheel by writing all
of the stuff again. This is the reason I started to examine Devicescape
code, nothing more.

And if you are familiar with the current in-kernel 802.11 code (and if
you know at least two different drivers), you will probably agree that
many things have to be changed in the current code even if we decided to
build on the top of it, so the result will finally differ a lot and will
be almost incompatible with the current code. (Why? I think I wrote some
explanation already to netdev list - if you don't find it or it is not
understandable, please let me know, I will try again.)


--
Jiri Benc
SUSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


mbuesch at freenet

Dec 5, 2005, 12:14 PM

Post #30 of 62 (5166 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Monday 05 December 2005 20:40, you wrote:
> > BCM43xx driver:
> > http://bcm43xx.berlios.de
> > Required SoftMAC Layer:
> > http://softmac.sipsolutions.net
>
> ...but don't feel like playing with *two* different revision control
> systems just to get the sources. Do you think you could just mail the
> diffs to the list?

The diffs will be outdated within minutes ;)
Both trees are rapidly changing.

--
Greetings Michael.


mbuesch at freenet

Dec 5, 2005, 12:23 PM

Post #31 of 62 (5175 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Monday 05 December 2005 19:00, you wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Dec 2005 19:50:08 +0100, mbuesch [at] freenet wrote:
> > The team is in the progress of writing a SoftwareMAC layer,
> > which is needed for the bcm device. The SoftMAC is still very
> > incomplete. So do not expect to do any fancy stuff like WPA
> > or something line that with it.
>
> Why yet another attempt to write 802.11 stack? Sure, the one currently
> in the kernel is unusable and everybody knows about it. But why not to
> improve code opensourced by Devicescape some time ago instead of
> inventing the wheel again and again? Yes, I know that code is not
> perfect and needs a lot of work, but it is the best piece of code we
> have available now. And it _does_ support WPA and such - in fact, it is
> nearly complete.

This is __not__ "yet another stack". It is an _extension_.
It is all about management frames, which the in-kernel code
does not manage.

We want a working device. The driver is in a state where it
is more or less usable. What is missing, is code to handle
management.
We tried the code from the RTL driver, but it is total crap.
We dropped it again. We thought about using yet another out of
kernel ieee80211 stack, but we began to write an extension
to the in-kernel code. If that was right or wrong, well, that's
the question.

If you _really_ think we should have used $EXTERNAL_STACK,
go and patch the driver to work with it. I would really like
to see it working. It is easy to change the used 80211 stack,
as it is only a task of replacing TX and RX function calls
(and a few parameter settings to the ieee struct on init).

PS: I forgot to mention in the announcement, that the driver has
problems with OFDM (that are all 802.11g) rates. So use 802.11b
rates. 11MBit works fine.

--
Greetings Michael.


pavel at ucw

Dec 5, 2005, 12:35 PM

Post #32 of 62 (5183 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

Hi!

> > > BCM43xx driver:
> > > http://bcm43xx.berlios.de
> > > Required SoftMAC Layer:
> > > http://softmac.sipsolutions.net
> >
> > ...but don't feel like playing with *two* different revision control
> > systems just to get the sources. Do you think you could just mail the
> > diffs to the list?
>
> The diffs will be outdated within minutes ;)
> Both trees are rapidly changing.

Okay, at least for preview... it would be nice. It can't change _that_
fast.

Plus, you may want to release some diffs anyway. Bugreport against
known version is way more interesting than bugreport against "tuesday,
13:23 version".

Pavel

--
Thanks, Sharp!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


arjan at infradead

Dec 5, 2005, 12:40 PM

Post #33 of 62 (5179 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 21:35 +0100, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > BCM43xx driver:
> > > > http://bcm43xx.berlios.de
> > > > Required SoftMAC Layer:
> > > > http://softmac.sipsolutions.net
> > >
> > > ...but don't feel like playing with *two* different revision control
> > > systems just to get the sources. Do you think you could just mail the
> > > diffs to the list?
> >
> > The diffs will be outdated within minutes ;)
> > Both trees are rapidly changing.
>
> Okay, at least for preview... it would be nice. It can't change _that_
> fast.

maybe daily snapshots would be nice for this...

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


mbuesch at freenet

Dec 5, 2005, 12:40 PM

Post #34 of 62 (5177 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Monday 05 December 2005 21:35, you wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > BCM43xx driver:
> > > > http://bcm43xx.berlios.de
> > > > Required SoftMAC Layer:
> > > > http://softmac.sipsolutions.net
> > >
> > > ...but don't feel like playing with *two* different revision control
> > > systems just to get the sources. Do you think you could just mail the
> > > diffs to the list?
> >
> > The diffs will be outdated within minutes ;)
> > Both trees are rapidly changing.
>
> Okay, at least for preview... it would be nice. It can't change _that_
> fast.
>
> Plus, you may want to release some diffs anyway. Bugreport against
> known version is way more interesting than bugreport against "tuesday,
> 13:23 version".

Ok, I will do a few tarballs tomorrow. Sorry, I have to leave right now.

--
Greetings Michael.


jbenc at suse

Dec 5, 2005, 12:42 PM

Post #35 of 62 (5194 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:23:42 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> This is __not__ "yet another stack". It is an _extension_.
> It is all about management frames, which the in-kernel code
> does not manage.

But this code should be part of the stack, as nearly every driver needs
it. Management handling should be really managed by the kernel. The same
applies to driver<->userspace communication - there is no need to bother
every driver with it. And so on.

The hard part is that every driver will need a slightly different amount
of this support depending on the amount of features that are provided by
firmware.

> We want a working device. The driver is in a state where it
> is more or less usable. What is missing, is code to handle
> management.

I understand.

> We tried the code from the RTL driver, but it is total crap.
> We dropped it again. We thought about using yet another out of
> kernel ieee80211 stack, but we began to write an extension
> to the in-kernel code. If that was right or wrong, well, that's
> the question.
>
> If you _really_ think we should have used $EXTERNAL_STACK,
> go and patch the driver to work with it.

No. I just think we (everybody) should concentrate at one particular
stack, finish it and merge it. And I'm convinced Jouni's stack is
currently the best solution available - far far from perfect, with many
issues, but still the best - and it will finally save as much time.


--
Jiri Benc
SUSE Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


netdev at nospam

Dec 5, 2005, 11:17 PM

Post #36 of 62 (5178 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

Hi.

On Mon, 2005-12-05 at 13:46 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Although I'm a bit biased towards MadWifi, I'd second your suggestion to
> > make use of the Devicescape code. The benefit of having a fully-blown
> > 802.11 stack in the kernel that drivers can make use of has been
> > discussed before, so I won't go into that yet again.
> Use the stack that's already in the kernel.

Sorry, that was my bad. I thought that the Devicescape code found its
way to the kernel (didn't follow the discussion some months ago too
closely). Although I think there probably are better alternatives to the
802.11 stack that is in the kernel right now, having a central 802.11
stack at all is a great improvement that should be used where possible.

> Encouraging otherwise hinders continued wireless progress under Linux.

That depends. If the encouraging is about an alternative, more complete
and superior 802.11 stack for Linux which could be integrated with less
effort than extending the existing code, that should be worth to talk
about.

Please note that I'm not refering here to any of the related suggestions
which have been made during the past months - it's a general statement.

Bye, Mike

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


mrmacman_g4 at mac

Dec 6, 2005, 1:26 AM

Post #37 of 62 (5177 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Dec 05, 2005, at 15:42, Jiri Benc wrote:
> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:23:42 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
>> This is __not__ "yet another stack". It is an _extension_. It is
>> all about management frames, which the in-kernel code does not
>> manage.
>
> But this code should be part of the stack, as nearly every driver
> needs it.

WRONG. More than half the currently Linux-compatible wireless cards
handle the wireless management packets in hardware, such that they're
little more complicated than a basic ethernet device with a channel,
an ESSID, and a list of MACs/APs.

> Management handling should be really managed by the kernel.

Yes, but it might not need to be in the base stack if it's largely
functionally independent.

> The hard part is that every driver will need a slightly different
> amount of this support depending on the amount of features that are
> provided by firmware.

s/firmware/hardware/g. This is _exactly_ why an external module
makes a lot of sense.

>> We tried the code from the RTL driver, but it is total crap. We
>> dropped it again. We thought about using yet another out of kernel
>> ieee80211 stack, but we began to write an extension to the in-
>> kernel code. If that was right or wrong, well, that's the question.
>>
>> If you _really_ think we should have used $EXTERNAL_STACK, go and
>> patch the driver to work with it.
>
> No. I just think we (everybody) should concentrate at one
> particular stack, finish it and merge it. And I'm convinced Jouni's
> stack is currently the best solution available - far far from
> perfect, with many issues, but still the best - and it will finally
> save as much time.

What you miss is that the kernel does _not_ go with the "rewrite it
and replace it" methodology. See Luben Toikov in the SAS flamewar
for another example. If a better stack exists, provide a nice clean
set of totally functional changes that convert the current one into
that one. In the process, we even get to keep the nice parts of the
current one that aren't in his (whatever they may be), and we always
have a working wireless stack. With the rewrite/replace solution,
you end up broken or unstable half the time.

Cheers,
Kyle Moffett

--
Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible
-- Alan Kay



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


luc at saillard

Dec 6, 2005, 2:23 AM

Post #38 of 62 (5196 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 04:26:50AM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> On Dec 05, 2005, at 15:42, Jiri Benc wrote:
> >On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 21:23:42 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >>This is __not__ "yet another stack". It is an _extension_. It is
> >>all about management frames, which the in-kernel code does not
> >>manage.
> >
> >But this code should be part of the stack, as nearly every driver
> >needs it.
>
> WRONG. More than half the currently Linux-compatible wireless cards
> handle the wireless management packets in hardware, such that they're
> little more complicated than a basic ethernet device with a channel,
> an ESSID, and a list of MACs/APs.
>

I do not want to enter in this flamewar, but the current driver i'm working
on (marvell libertas chipset) need management frames in software. But to
reduce cost, i think that lower chipset try to put the most in the host and
not in the chipset. Marvell build the chipset around a ARM cpu so i think one
day i can do it in hardware but for now i need to choose a ieee802.11 stack.
I've began to used the in kernel solution with my own functions to
send and received this frame. But i hope we will find a technical solution
that please everyone. I'll try to see if the softmac layer written for
broadcom driver can be used for my project.

Luc
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


pavel at suse

Dec 6, 2005, 7:04 AM

Post #39 of 62 (5175 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

Hi!

> > Please stop beeing a freaking jackass. There are various projects using
> > the current code. It's not perfect but people are working on it.
>
> Yes, and everyone implements his own softmac (this is the third one I
> know about). I tried to put all of these efforts together (google
> through the netdev archives) and wrote many patches.

Well, unfortunately people seem to disagree about "what the right
softmac is". And James's code is in kernel, thats _huge_ advantage.

> > And please stop your stupid devicespace advertisements. If you think the
> > code is so useful why don't you send patches to integrate it with the
> > currently existing wireless code (after cleaning up the horrible mess
> > it is currently)?
>
> This is what I'm doing last two months. But it's not so easy to clean it
> up and it seems that nobody else is interested. But it has all of the
> features you need (except active scanning) - this is the reason I
> stopped to work on improving current in-kernel 802.11 code and focused
> on Devicescape's code. It is several years beyond the state that current
> code is at now. And it is not an advertisement, it is a fact.

Another fact is that it is not in kernel, and by the time you get it
cleaned up, in-kernel code will probably get advanced enough that your
code will not be merged.

If devicescape is really so much better, submit it _now_. It may be
slightly buggy, but so is probably current code.

--
Thanks, Sharp!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


pavel at suse

Dec 6, 2005, 7:09 AM

Post #40 of 62 (5185 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

Hi!

> > That's because you still don't get how we do development. The last thing
> > we want is full-scale rewrites. Submit patches to fix things based on
> > whatever you want but do it incremental.
>
> We have got almost finished and working stack. Everything we need to do
> is:
> 1. identify issues;
> 2. fix the issues; some of them will need broader discussion;
> 3. split it into several (potentially a lot of) reviewable patches;
> 4. clean up the drivers.
>
> I'm in phase 2 now (no interesting results yet). I don't think it is

No, it does not work like that. You don't get nice, reviewable,
mergeable patches by developing code independently for 3 years or so
then attempting merge.

If devicescape code is better than mainline, merge it _now_. If it is
not, drop it and start from mainline code.

> And if you are familiar with the current in-kernel 802.11 code (and if
> you know at least two different drivers), you will probably agree that
> many things have to be changed in the current code even if we decided to
> build on the top of it, so the result will finally differ a lot and will
> be almost incompatible with the current code.

That's okay; as long as incremental way exist, first version not being
compatible with last version is not a problem.
Pavel

--
Thanks, Sharp!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


laforge at gnumonks

Dec 6, 2005, 7:10 AM

Post #41 of 62 (5190 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2005 at 02:53:29PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > 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 ?

Dave, the Orinoco is a wireless card that has a hardware MAC, plust
firmware.

I do agree with Jiri that there basically is no support for softmac
devices in the ieee80211 code.

I'm also in favor of merging the devicescape code, but I don't see it
happening without somebody taking care to provide all the required
levels of interfaces (I see at least three levels of API's that a wireless
driver would need, depending on how much stuff is done in
hardware/firmware and how much in software.

I also think that there is a lack of knowledge on the architecture of
802.11 low-level protocols and drivers among many people (including
myself) in the network community. Only this way I can explain why there
are always people who claim that the kernel already has a 802.11
'stack'.

--
- Harald Welte <laforge [at] gnumonks> http://gnumonks.org/
============================================================================
"Privacy in residential applications is a desirable marketing option."
(ETSI EN 300 175-7 Ch. A6)


greearb at candelatech

Dec 6, 2005, 8:43 AM

Post #42 of 62 (5192 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
>
>>>That's because you still don't get how we do development. The last thing
>>>we want is full-scale rewrites. Submit patches to fix things based on
>>>whatever you want but do it incremental.
>>
>>We have got almost finished and working stack. Everything we need to do
>>is:
>>1. identify issues;
>>2. fix the issues; some of them will need broader discussion;
>>3. split it into several (potentially a lot of) reviewable patches;
>>4. clean up the drivers.
>>
>>I'm in phase 2 now (no interesting results yet). I don't think it is
>
>
> No, it does not work like that. You don't get nice, reviewable,
> mergeable patches by developing code independently for 3 years or so
> then attempting merge.
>
> If devicescape code is better than mainline, merge it _now_. If it is
> not, drop it and start from mainline code.

Merge now even if it breaks the current tree? I for one would certainly
rather he finish his work on it and get it more polished. Reviewing and
testing something that actually works would be a lot more fun...


--
Ben Greear <greearb [at] candelatech>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jgarzik at pobox

Dec 6, 2005, 11:05 AM

Post #43 of 62 (5203 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

Harald Welte wrote:
> I also think that there is a lack of knowledge on the architecture of
> 802.11 low-level protocols and drivers among many people (including
> myself) in the network community. Only this way I can explain why there
> are always people who claim that the kernel already has a 802.11
> 'stack'.

This last sentence, regardless of the source, is simply playing with words.

We have 802.11 common code in the kernel, that several drivers are
using. Future drivers should modify that common code to suit their
needs, rather than dropping it and starting from scratch.

Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jgarzik at pobox

Dec 6, 2005, 11:24 AM

Post #44 of 62 (5190 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

Pavel Machek wrote:
> No, it does not work like that. You don't get nice, reviewable,
> mergeable patches by developing code independently for 3 years or so
> then attempting merge.
>
> If devicescape code is better than mainline, merge it _now_. If it is
> not, drop it and start from mainline code.

Agreed.

Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


shemminger at osdl

Dec 6, 2005, 12:53 PM

Post #45 of 62 (5195 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Tue, 06 Dec 2005 14:05:07 -0500
Jeff Garzik <jgarzik [at] pobox> wrote:

> Harald Welte wrote:
> > I also think that there is a lack of knowledge on the architecture of
> > 802.11 low-level protocols and drivers among many people (including
> > myself) in the network community. Only this way I can explain why there
> > are always people who claim that the kernel already has a 802.11
> > 'stack'.
>
> This last sentence, regardless of the source, is simply playing with words.
>
> We have 802.11 common code in the kernel, that several drivers are
> using. Future drivers should modify that common code to suit their
> needs, rather than dropping it and starting from scratch.

Also, the correct way to built network code is often not aligned with
the artificial layering imposed by standards.

--
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger [at] osdl>
OSDL http://developer.osdl.org/~shemminger
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jt at hpl

Dec 6, 2005, 2:47 PM

Post #46 of 62 (5185 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

Jiri Benc wrote :
> On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 13:46:43 -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> > Use the stack that's already in the kernel.
> >
> > Encouraging otherwise hinders continued wireless progress under Linux.
>
> There is nothing like a "802.11 stack" currently in the kernel,
> regardless what James Ketrenos is saying. Sorry.

Hi,

Sorry to intrude in your happy flamefest ;-)

I take offense to what your are saying. There has been many
"802.11 stacks" floating over the years (check my web page). However,
only James went through the pain of getting one in the kernel. That's
not something that should be underestimated.
Now, with respect to the "best" stacks. Some will argue that
the linux-wlan-ng has the most maturity. Some will argue that the
MadWifi stack is used by *BSD. Some will argue that the devicescape
has most features. All this arguing leads to nowhere...

Personally, I'm a pragmatic a heart. The most important thing
to me is end-user support. 99% of our users don't care about advanced
features, they just want their hardware to work out of the box (and
the people who want the advanced features are usually willing to patch
their kernels). They don't care how we do the plumbing internally.
Therefore, for me, a stack is only as good as the number of
drivers that support it. And this is where the devicescape stack is
lacking.

IPW stack :
drivers using it : ipw2100, ipw2200
drivers in progress : rt2x000, bcm430x
potential drivers : r8180, adm8211, hostap

MadWifi stack :
drivers using it : MadWifi (non GPL)
drivers in progress : FreeHAL Atheros, Prism54 softMAC, ural-ralink

DeviceScape stack :
drivers using it : ?
potential drivers : hostap, ipw2100, ipw2200, r8180, adm8211

If you want to use the DeviceScape stack instead of the IPW
stack, my first question is how do you plan to migrate the drivers
using it to the new stack. Currently, people are hard at work
targetting the IPW stack (see above), I don't want them to have to
throw away all their work.
In particular, iwp2*00 are working today in the kernel, and I
expect that they would be migrated to the new stack at the stack
switchover. As both the IPW and the DeviceScape stacks are derived
from the HostAP stack, that should not be too hard.
Also, what puzzle me is that Jouni doesn't seem to have
anounced any plan to port his HostAP driver to his DeviceScape
stack. If there is one driver that should use it, that's HostAP.

Have fun...

Jean


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


davem at davemloft

Dec 6, 2005, 3:19 PM

Post #47 of 62 (5177 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

From: Harald Welte <laforge [at] gnumonks>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 20:40:47 +0530

> I'm also in favor of merging the devicescape code, but I don't see it
> happening without somebody taking care to provide all the required
> levels of interfaces (I see at least three levels of API's that a wireless
> driver would need, depending on how much stuff is done in
> hardware/firmware and how much in software.

I hate to say this, but part of the problem is exactly the fact
that all the implementors have implemented different levels of
hardware-MAC'ness in their wireless products.

Stated even further, things might have been more consistent if M$ had
specified a set of driver interfaces into their own softmac stack,
which I am to understand they are working on now.

So every M$ wireless driver essentially links in their own softmac
stack, if needed.

This has resulted in a complicated situation for an already
complicated technology. Therefore, the fact that it's taking this
long to accomodate all of the cases in the vanilla tree is quite
understandable.

I'm at the point where I frankly don't care which softmac
implementation we go with, but rather I'm more concerned that we pick
_ONE_ and just stick with it, and then adding the necessary interfaces
and infrastructure as different wireless devices require.

Yes, you hear me right, it's more important to agree to one
implementation as the basis, even if it's the worst one currently.
Division of labor is something we simply cannot afford on the wireless
stack at this time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


davem at davemloft

Dec 6, 2005, 3:25 PM

Post #48 of 62 (5193 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

From: Ben Greear <greearb [at] candelatech>
Date: Tue, 06 Dec 2005 08:43:39 -0800

> Merge now even if it breaks the current tree?

DCCP is a good counter example, zero --> some functionality is
always preferred. Our DCCP stack is far from being finished, but
it is in there and getting polished and maintained like everything
else in the upstream tree.

And once it's in there, we can review small patches that add new
functionality not this behemouth "here's the whole thing" jumbo
patch that nobody will want to review.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jgarzik at pobox

Dec 6, 2005, 3:45 PM

Post #49 of 62 (5166 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

David S. Miller wrote:
> I'm at the point where I frankly don't care which softmac
> implementation we go with, but rather I'm more concerned that we pick
> _ONE_ and just stick with it, and then adding the necessary interfaces
> and infrastructure as different wireless devices require.
>
> Yes, you hear me right, it's more important to agree to one
> implementation as the basis, even if it's the worst one currently.
> Division of labor is something we simply cannot afford on the wireless
> stack at this time.

Agreed.

Jeff


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


jkmaline at cc

Dec 6, 2005, 11:11 PM

Post #50 of 62 (5189 views)
Permalink
Re: Broadcom 43xx first results [In reply to]

On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 02:47:28PM -0800, Jean Tourrilhes wrote:

> DeviceScape stack :
> drivers using it : ?
> potential drivers : hostap, ipw2100, ipw2200, r8180, adm8211

It's mainly used with Atheros chipsets nowadays, but it has been used
with couple of other chipsets, too, including Prism2/2.5/3 and parts of
Host AP driver.

> If you want to use the DeviceScape stack instead of the IPW
> stack, my first question is how do you plan to migrate the drivers
> using it to the new stack. Currently, people are hard at work
> targetting the IPW stack (see above), I don't want them to have to
> throw away all their work.

No matter how this is done, I think it is quite likely that lot of work
has to be thrown away in the sense that it does not end up being in the
kernel. Having n+1 implementations for generic 802.11 functionality is a
good proof of this already being the case. I wouldn't say all work is
thrown away, though, even if lots of code will get thrown away. It is
good to get understanding on what kind of specific requirements each
chipset has in order to be able to accommodate them in the 802.11 design
for Linux.

> In particular, iwp2*00 are working today in the kernel, and I
> expect that they would be migrated to the new stack at the stack
> switchover. As both the IPW and the DeviceScape stacks are derived
> from the HostAP stack, that should not be too hard.

Devicescape code is not actually derived from Host AP code. The user
space component is same (hostapd), but the kernel side is completely new
implementation. As far as IPW is concerned, some parts of it is indeed
derived from Host AP (I can never remember which one, but either TX or
RX; while the other side was new design for some reason).

> Also, what puzzle me is that Jouni doesn't seem to have
> anounced any plan to port his HostAP driver to his DeviceScape
> stack. If there is one driver that should use it, that's HostAP.

Prism2/2.5/3 is getting somewhat old nowadays and I certainly prefer
other chipset designs that do not have a large firmware component
preventing driver/802.11 stack from doing things. Anyway, I have
actually used Devicescape code with Prism2/2.5/3 cards by taking the
low-level parts of the Host AP driver. This just happened to be
two-three years ago and that code has found no use after that, so it has
not been maintained.

I would certainly like to get rid of maintaining many parts of Host AP
driver by getting it to use shared IEEE 802.11 code. I have been quite
occupied with other projects lately which has made it more difficult to
get much progress done here. Anyway, the current goal is to free up my
time by end of this year so that I could start concentrating on the open
source IEEE 802.11 stack for Linux 2.6.

One of the things I would like to do is to make sure that there is
somewhat more complete setup available for testing the Devicescape code
as part of open source development. I'm most familiar with Atheros
chipset nowadays, so I would probably prefer to work with that and maybe
Prism2 (i.e., support from Host AP driver) would be a good example of a
firmware-based design, so those could be the easiest low-level drivers
to get available using Devicescape 802.11 code. Getting ipw2x00 working
with some kind of mix of the 802.11 stacks would be good think to do in
order to make it easier to maintain existing functionality if larger
changes for net/ieee80211 code is desired.

My goal is to get something into kernel tree that allows all types of
chipset designs to benefit from the same implementation of 802.11
functionality. I'm not sure what would be the best way to achieve this
quickly, but I have to admit that I would prefer the design used in
Devicescape implementation over the code that is currently in Linux 2.6
tree.

I need to take a closer look at what could be done to merge the 802.11
code in a way that would not break existing in-tree drivers that are
using net/ieee80211 (i.e., mainly ipw2x00). I'm afraid quite large
changes will be needed to make the current in-tree code more usable for
devices that use very minimal firmware or no firmware at all. In
addition, the issue of dropping AP code from Host AP when merging in the
version that ipw2x00 was using needs more attention when deciding what
kind of design would allow all drivers to work with shared IEEE 802.11
stack.

--
Jouni Malinen PGP id EFC895FA
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo [at] vger
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All Linux kernel RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.