On Fri, 2020-07-24 at 12:26 +0300, Kalle Valo wrote: > > > So to me it feels like the best solution forward is to go with the > > > vendor API, do you agree? We can, of course, later switch to the common > > > API if we manage to create one which is usable for everyone.
But why wouldn't we try that now, while we have it all in our heads (in a way ... even if this discussion drags out forever)? I mean, the range-based approach ought to work, and if we define it as a nested attribute list or so, we can even later add more attributes to it (chain limits, whatnot) without any backward compatibility concerns. So what is it that we _cannot_ do in a more common way today? > > I think we've had some healthy (though very protracted) discussion, > > and I don't think I've seen anyone bring up anything I wasn't already > > aware of that would prevent eventual consolidation. As long as we > > acknowledge those things (item 2 at > > https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/nl80211#vendor-specific_api), > > I'm happy. > > Good, I was just checking that we all are on the same page. But are we? ;-) I don't really see anything in the new proposal [1] that really explains why the common API that we've sort of vaguely outlined in this thread couldn't work? It just speaks of technical difficulties ("need a reporting API too"), but should we let that stop us? [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11686317/ johannes _______________________________________________ ath10k mailing list ath10k@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/ath10k
