Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210727232219.2948-1-phil@philpotter.co.uk> <20210728074605.pp5rs4c65tofnqot@viti.kaiser.cx>
In-Reply-To: <20210728074605.pp5rs4c65tofnqot@viti.kaiser.cx>
From:   Phillip Potter <phil@philpotter.co.uk>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jul 2021 17:00:18 +0100
Message-ID: <CAA=Fs0mH9YAVhr24YeE3jpZrnuDGhOuhj=Sb9Ekkpb-xoC5LYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] staging: r8188eu: add newer/better RTL8188eu driver
To:     Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@lwfinger.net>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-staging@lists.linux.dev, Fabio Aiuto <fabioaiuto83@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 28 Jul 2021 at 08:46, Martin Kaiser <martin@kaiser.cx> wrote:
>
> Hi Philipp and all,
>
> Thus wrote Phillip Potter (phil@philpotter.co.uk):
>
> > The driver currently in staging is older and less functional than the
> > version on Larry Finger's GitHub account, based upon v4.1.4_6773.20130222.
> > This series of patches therefore:
>
> [...]
>
> > V4: don't remove old driver now, just mark as deprecated and modify to
> >     allow building alongside the new driver.
>
> Basically, you're suggesting to put aside all the fixes and cleanup
> that was done since the rtl8188eu driver was imported into the kernel
> tree. The TODO file says
>
> - merge Realtek's bugfixes and new features into the driver
>
> Why aren't we going down this route?
>
> Edimax offer a realtek driver linux_v5.7.6.1_36803.20200602 for
> rtl8188eu as a .zip file for download on their website
>
> https://www.edimax.com/edimax/mw/cufiles/files/download/Driver_Utility/EW-7811Un_V2/EW-7811Un_V2_Linux_Driver_1.0.1.2.zip
>
> If we integrate and fix the v4.1.4_6773.20130222 driver, are we running
> the risk that someone else will come along and propose another replacement?
>
> Thanks,
> Martin

Dear Martin,

I see what you are saying for sure - I think we've both sunk a fair
few patches into the existing driver :-)

That said, from what Larry has mentioned, this newer driver would
still be a better bet overall due to the additional work that has
already happened on it out-of-tree. The Realtek driver you reference
probably has no CFG80211 support etc. would be my guess, but I am
going off what others have suggested in terms of proposing this
patchset. I can't honestly say what the risk of this happening again
would be, but minimal I'd imagine.

Regards,
Phil