Hostap_pci vs. orinoco_pci

[Jar]

Pavel Roskin wrote:
>>>By the way, orinoco_pci only support Prism based cards.
>>
>>Is there some particular reason to keep the orinoco_pci now when we have hostap_pci?
> 
> Because it's more universal.  I can have an Orinoco pcmcia card and a
> Prism PCI card and have them both supported by one driver.

But how good the Prism2 support actually is? Orinoco drivers can't 
support WPA. So Prism2 users ends up to use orinoco driver without 
important WPA security. With hostap driver they can get all the flavours.

> Not having orinoco_pci would be like an artificial limitation for users
> with Prism PCI cards.

It is now limitation for the Prism users and users who want to use it as 
access point when the system wants to load orinoco drivers (pcmcia, pci) 
instead of hostap_xxx.

> orinoco_pci is good for testing Orinoco backend on embedded systems that
> only support MiniPCI.
> 
> Development of the orinoco driver is still going on.  Not having
> orinoco_pci would limit developers and testers to systems with PCMCIA
> bridges (including PLX).

Maybe you should concentrate to support Hermes I and WPA. In my opinion 
  when the two drivers supports the same hardware it is waste of time.
Particularly when the hostap driver is somewhat 100% complete for 
present day's wireless use.

The situation would be different if the hostap has some weaknesses when 
the another driver hasn't. But the hostap driver does it's job well, for 
me over two years now 365d/24h and it's security features are also up to 
date.

I have also orinoco cards and naturally want to use orinoco driver for 
them. But at least with Lucent fw:8.72 sometimes the system gives me 
"interrupt delivery" warnings and the orinoco_cs resets the card when I 
use it in monitor mode together with Kismet.

-- 
Best Regards, Jar