Return-path: Received: from mail-ob0-f182.google.com ([209.85.214.182]:33293 "EHLO mail-ob0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753931AbbHMUok (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Aug 2015 16:44:40 -0400 Received: by obbhe7 with SMTP id he7so46656746obb.0 for ; Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:44:40 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1439496080.2114.39.camel@sipsolutions.net> References: <1438292115-39495-1-git-send-email-filbranden@google.com> <1439456484.2114.6.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1439490787.2114.36.camel@sipsolutions.net> <1439496080.2114.39.camel@sipsolutions.net> From: enh Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:44:20 -0700 Message-ID: (sfid-20150813_224447_402879_19E50A1E) Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] iw: fixes to Android.mk to include "iw" in AOSP builds To: Johannes Berg Cc: Filipe Brandenburger , Arik Nemtsov , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, Christopher Wiley , Ying Wang Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 1:01 PM, Johannes Berg wrote: > On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 12:48 -0700, enh wrote: >> >> i think you misunderstand what AOSP is. this code is currently in >> AOSP master, and thus in internal master, and thus in a future >> release. > > Great, but as I understand it, vendors are under no obligation to > actually ship that code on their devices. > > If a vendor needs to have an iw that, for example, supports their own > vendor commands (which, as I understand from the wifihal etc., Google > is basically forcing vendors to have!), then the AOSP iw is useless and > an own version needs to be built. but given that our iw is your iw anyway... i don't understand the situation in which they'd be inconvenienced here? > johannes -- Elliott Hughes - http://who/enh - http://jessies.org/~enh/ Android native code/tools questions? Mail me/drop by/add me as a reviewer.