On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 11:45 PM, Stefan Sperling <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 09:22:51PM +0000, Alexey Suslikov wrote: >> T. Jameson Little <beatgammit <at> gmail.com> writes: >> > Well, I'm much more capable of fixing existing drivers to make it work >> > well than building something from scratch, and I imagine the same is >> > true for many developers, because you work on whatever affects you. >> >> IMO, "fixing existing drivers" should take popularity into account. >> >> I asked sthen@ some time ago (in early 2013) about 802.11 drivers >> usage (according to dmesg logs), and he replied: >> >> we already have information about chips from dmesglog. since may 2009: >> >> 2 an >> 2 malo >> 2 urtwn >> 4 atu >> 4 zyd >> 7 acx >> 7 otus >> 7 ural >> 13 rsu >> 13 uath >> 16 ipw >> 33 wi >> 43 iwi >> 44 run >> 50 rum >> 67 bwi >> 105 urtw >> 107 ral >> 114 wpi >> 171 ath >> 199 athn >> 547 iwn >> >> (end of quote). >> >> So, IMO, "fixing" Intel's drivers maybe be kinda preferred way to go >> because of higher usage and better quality/documentation. > > This list doesn't count unsupported devices. It is skewed towards built-in > devices, e.g. urtwn is quite common but it is at the bottom of this list. > I think these numbers just mean that most laptop installs happen on thinkpads.
Yes. I understand. I have urtwn too, because of built-in "Ralink RT3290" rev 0x00 at pci2 dev 0 function 0 not configured is not supported (I tried to hack on top of linux driver with no success). http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=a89534edaaa7008992b878680490e9b02a665563 My point was, development should start around something widespread so people can test easily. This maybe urtwn, iwn and iwm, for instance.
