On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 09:54:51AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 09:06:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 04, 2006 at 01:50:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > acx1xx-wireless-driver.patch > > > fix-tiacx-on-alpha.patch > > > tiacx-fix-attribute-packed-warnings.patch > > > tiacx-pci-build-fix.patch > > > tiacx-ia64-fix.patch > > > > > > It is about time we did something with this large and presumably useful > > > wireless driver. > > > > I've never had technical objections to merging this, just AFAIK it had a > > highly questionable origin, namely being reverse-engineered in a > > non-clean-room environment that might leave Linux legally vulnerable. > > As are at leasdt a fourth of linux drivers. Andrew, please just go ahead > and merge it (I'll do another review ASAP).
Actually, I was planning to merge the softmac-based version for 2.6.18. It looks like I may want some of Andrew's patches on top (ia64, alpha, etc). http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/linville/wireless-2.6/master/ 0003-wireless-add-acx-driver.txt 0004-acxsm-merge-from-acx-0.3.32.txt 0005-tiacx-Let-only-ACX_PCI-ACX_USB-be-user-visible.txt 0007-tiacx-revert-neither-PCI-nor-USB-is-selected-change.txt 0008-tiacx-implement-much-more-flexible-firmware-statistics-parsing.txt 0009-tiacx-Change-acx_ioctl_-get-set-_encode-to-use-kernel-80211-stack.txt 0010-tiacx-fix-breakage-of-Get-rid-of-circular-list-of-adev-s.txt 0011-tiacx-split-module-into-acx-common-acx-pci-acx-usb.txt Of course, I didn't know there were serious concerns about this driver's origin. I hope we aren't confusing this with the atheros driver...? > Please don't let this reverse engineering idiocy hinder wireless driver > adoption, we're already falling far behind openbsd who are very successfull > reverse engineering lots of wireless chipsets. This bugbear does seem to keep visiting us. It is a bit of a minefield. I'm inclined to think that Christoph and Arjan are right, that we have been too cautious. Of course, neither of these fine gentlemen are known for their timidity... :-) Does not the Signed-off-by: line on a patch submission give us some level of "good faith" protection? I'm tempted to take contributors at their word, that they have produced their own work and not copied from others. What else do we need? John -- John W. Linville [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
