Return-path: Received: from he.sipsolutions.net ([78.46.109.217]:39241 "EHLO sipsolutions.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751222Ab3C0MfN (ORCPT ); Wed, 27 Mar 2013 08:35:13 -0400 Message-ID: <1364387698.8388.1.camel@jlt4.sipsolutions.net> (sfid-20130327_133521_754134_731541B4) Subject: Re: P2P support in brcmfmac From: Johannes Berg To: "John W. Linville" Cc: Arend van Spriel , "John W. Linville" , David Spinadel , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:34:58 +0100 In-Reply-To: <20130327122216.GA2146@tuxdriver.com> References: <5152DD47.2080501@broadcom.com> <20130327122216.GA2146@tuxdriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 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? johannes