Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-wireless+bounces-3531-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <ca517fb19f78e3c507fd315e2f30e5efa4723eb8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] wifi: nl80211: Add support for plumbing SAE groups
 to driver
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Arend van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@broadcom.com>, Kalle Valo
	 <kvalo@kernel.org>, Vinayak Yadawad <vinayak.yadawad@broadcom.com>
Cc: linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, jithu.jance@broadcom.com, 
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2024 13:30:31 +0100
In-Reply-To: <6eaab8fa-f62e-4f78-9cbe-9b13e3d77ca7@broadcom.com>
References: 
	<309965e8ef4d220053ca7e6bd34393f892ea1bb8.1707486287.git.vinayak.yadawad@broadcom.com>
	 <87mss6f8jh.fsf@kernel.org>
	 <2c38eaed47808a076b6986412f92bb955b0599c3.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <b4d44fb5-78e5-4408-a108-2c3d340b090e@broadcom.com>
	 <b00c3b53cd740e998163f84511ee05dc3051ce8b.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <df8f02b1-25b0-4dae-a935-cee9ba7f3dc4@broadcom.com>
	 <0cb1d7ef63ad1ea1ff4109d85a6bcdcaca16f1c8.camel@sipsolutions.net>
	 <6eaab8fa-f62e-4f78-9cbe-9b13e3d77ca7@broadcom.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
User-Agent: Evolution 3.50.3 (3.50.3-1.fc39) 
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0

On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 13:19 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> On 2/13/2024 12:45 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Tue, 2024-02-13 at 12:13 +0100, Arend van Spriel wrote:
> > >=20
> > > I recall the rule was that nl80211 API changes
> > > should also have at least one driver implementing it. Guess we let th=
at
> > > slip a couple of times. I fully agree enforcing this.
> >=20
> > Well, enforcing it strictly never really worked all that well in
> > practice, since you don't necessarily want to have a complex driver
> > implementation while hashing out the API, and the API fundamentally has
> > to come first.
> >=20
> > So in a sense it comes down to trust, and that people will actually
> > follow up with implementations. And yeah, plans can change and you end
> > up not really supporting everything that was defined ... that's life, I
> > guess.
> >=20
> > But the mode here seems to be that there's not even any _intent_ to do
> > that?
> >=20
> > I guess we could hash out the API, review the patches, and then _not_
> > apply them until a driver is ready? So the first round of reviews would
> > still come with API only, but once that settles we don't actually merge
> > it immediately, unlike normally where we merge a patch we've reviewed?
> > And then if whoever did it lost interest, we already have a reviewed
> > version for anyone else who might need it?
>=20
> Sounds like a plan. Maybe they can get a separate state in patchwork and=
=20
> let them sit there for grabs.

I guess I can leave them open as 'under review' or something? Not sure
we can add other states.

johannes