Anybody working on gdm72xx?

Michalis Pappas mpappas at fastmail.fm
Tue Jul 1 20:47:55 UTC 2014


On 07/01/2014 07:38 PM, Olof Johansson wrote:
> I'm not Greg, but in general the requirements of not breaking the
> userspace ABI does not apply to staging drivers.
> 
> However, that doesn't mean that it makes sense to gratuitously break it
> "just because". 

Certainly not. My only concern was about replacing obsolete parts and if
possible conforming to the standardized API, since it's there. Other
than that, I definitely have no personal feeling towards "just because" :)

As Ben mentions, the "wimax-tools" isn't a generic tool,
> it's just a generic name for a tool for one other driver.
> 

I don't think that's entirely true. From what I understand, wimax-tools
(and in fact wimax.h) have probably stemmed from i2400m, but they are
meant to be a generic layer based on the wimax stack.

Note: I don't know if what brought you to this conclusion is the
statement in their docs saying to configure using
--with-i2400m=/path/to/i2400m/driver but if you run configure --help you
will find out that it is now deprecated.

Anyway, using wifitools is not required so that should not an issue.

> Switching over to a generic netlink address seems reasonable. I'm less
> certain how much it's worth to polish it beyond that, especially given
> that there's already legacy tools out there that use the existing
> interface (changing the address shouldn't be nearly as big a deal to
> sort out than changing the whole ABI).
> 

I agree. Please have a look on my reply to Ben's last message where I
explain some of the technical details and let me know what you think.
BTW, which other legacy tools are you referring to?

Michalis



More information about the devel mailing list