On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 03:22:50AM -0500, John W. Linville wrote: > On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 06:19:07PM -0500, Jeff Garzik wrote: > > Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 01:00:47PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > > >>allows the 8388 to continue routing other laptops' packets over the mesh > > >>*while the host CPU is asleep*. > > > > > >We're not going to put a lot of junk into the kernel just because the OLPC > > >folks decide to do odd powermanagment schemes. > > > > We're not going to ignore useful power management schemes just because > > they don't fit neatly into a pre-existing category. > > > > I think the request to determine how all this maps into MLME is fair, > > though. > > Definitely. Also, I wonder if there was any attempt to evaluate how > the ieee80211 (or d80211) code might be extended in order to elimnate > the need for some of the libertas wlan_* files?
The regulatory domain structures, channel information (struct ieee80211_channel), HW mode (struct ieee80211_hw_mode) compromised of supported channels and rates, and probably a few others in the same category. I can't see the possibility of using d80211 as it stands (designed for softmac cards dealing with 802.11 packets to/from the OS). However, it does not make any sense to use the structures defined by d80211 if not effectively using it (we send/receive 802.3 frames to the firmware, after all), IMO. As discussed on this thread, there is a lot of code to be cleanup up, but no structural changes AFAICT. Is there a general agreement on that, now? - 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
