Message-ID: <1364388675.8388.5.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130327_135135_319943_46BFBC3F)
Subject: Re: P2P support in brcmfmac
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: "John W. Linville" <linville@tuxdriver.com>
Cc: Arend van Spriel <arend@broadcom.com>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@redhat.com>,
	David Spinadel <david.spinadel@intel.com>,
	linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:51:15 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20130327124422.GB2146@tuxdriver.com>
References: <5152DD47.2080501@broadcom.com>
	 <20130327122216.GA2146@tuxdriver.com>
	 <1364387698.8388.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net>
	 <20130327124422.GB2146@tuxdriver.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 08:44 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:34:58PM +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, 2013-03-27 at 08:22 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:51:35PM +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > > 
> > > > In 3.9 we introduced P2P support in brcmfmac which was functional using
> > > > current wpa_supplicant P2P support, but we did not yet support the
> > > > P2P_DEVICE user-space API.
> > > > 
> > > > Last week I enabled that in brcmfmac testing it with wpa_supplicant
> > > > patches for P2P_DEVICE support from David Spinadel. So I do have a
> > > > couple of brcmfmac patches to make that work and would like to submit
> > > > those for 3.9 although it is not strictly a bug fix. Would you consider
> > > > taking these?
> > > 
> > > That doesn't sound to me like something that would be worthy of such
> > > an exception.
> > 
> > Maybe just make a small patch to disable the other API, so we don't end
> > up having to support both?
> 
> Maybe I misunderstood.  So brcmfmac currently supports a P2P API
> that is not otherwise available and which we don't want to support
> in the future?

As I understand it, brcmfmac currently supports having a P2P device
*netdev*, which is of (wireless) type STATION (presumably), which isn't
something we want to support (well, I don't anyway, it's difficult to
discover for applications).

The "correct" way (the way I decided to implement this P2P device
concept in the upstreamtree ) is to have a P2P device *wireless dev*
which has no netdev associated -- this makes more sense since no data
frames are ever transmitted or received on a P2P device.

As I understand Arend, he was suggesting to put patches into 3.9 that
would move brcmfmac from the interim API with a netdev he had used for
testing to the final API that is actually implemented in 3.9 but before
the wpa_supplicant patches had no way to get used. Now those patches are
there in wpa_supplicant though (or well, on their way in)

johannes