MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20090925044258.GA2722@tuxdriver.com>
References: <20090924180048.14503.9579.stgit@tikku>
	 <43e72e890909241320j592e347die8a14f8bdd962ffb@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20090925044258.GA2722@tuxdriver.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 2009 09:47:54 -0700
Message-ID: <da94abde0909250947k5084db85vccafe0d3e74e2ecf@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] cfg80211: firmware and hardware version
From: Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@gmail.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 9:42 PM, John W. Linville
<linville@tuxdriver.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 01:20:35PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@iki.fi> wrote:
>> > Here's my suggestion how to provide firmware and hardware version to
>> > user space. First I was thinking adding a new nl80211 command and
>> > it looked so ugly that I decided include the versions in struct wiphy
>> > instead.
>> >
>> > Please comment.
>>
>> What was the conclusion on ethtool stuff again? I forgot.
>
> IIRC, I suggested that the cfg80211 driver API (or just the wiphy
> data structure) could be extended for appropriate bits like this,
> then cfg80211 could catch ethtool operations in a way similar to how
> it catches wireless extensions now.

Oh, then I misunderstood our discussion at the summit, my
understanding was that we will use nl80211 anyway. Sorry about that.

But we want to export two strings to user space (at least for now), is
it really worth the effort to add ethtool support for such a minor
feature? Also I have understood that ethtool is implemented only for
ethernet drivers, I don't feel comfortable that we use ethernet driver
interfaces with 802.11 device drivers. They are so much different that
there isn't that much common functionality. That's why I prefer
nl80211 over ethtool.

What do people think?

Kalle