[PATCH] Add extended 'driver' command

Dmitry Shmidt dimitrysh
Sat Apr 9 14:22:20 PDT 2011

On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Kalle Valo <kvalo at adurom.com> wrote:
> Dmitry Shmidt <dimitrysh at google.com> writes:
>> So my point is let's add something similar to old private command
>> approach in WEXT and it will give to people flexibility
>> to extend functionality that is still not mainstreamed.
> WE private interface was a big mess and we are still suffering from
> it. Adding an interface like that will basically ruin any clean API we
> have.

Probably WEXT was a bad example. Why would somebody use private
interface for something where standard
one can be used? So people use WEXT private commands for something
that was not designed.
Then probably most of the  "private" commands from WEXT were taken
into account during nl80211 design.
And this is great. However, apparently not everything was covered.

> For example, it has been a basic design decision in nl80211 to not
> have any private interfaces. The only exception is the testmode
> command, but that's only for very low level hardware specific test and
> calibration commands. It should not be used in any normal operations.
>> And then let's try to move all new commands to proper API as you
>> suggested.
> And then nobody has any incentive to implement proper interfaces and
> we are stuck with driver specific private interfaces, again. Please,
> let's not do the same mistakes again.

I disagree here, wireless community do have intensives to implement
standard interfaces. Simply because of different
and in most cases objective reasons, product demands are "quicker"
than open-source community response.

> --
> Kalle Valo


More information about the Hostap mailing list