(Adding ath...@lists.infradead.org) Sven Eckelmann <s...@open-mesh.com> writes:
> On Monday 17 February 2014 05:57:25 Kalle Valo wrote: >> Sven Eckelmann <s...@open-mesh.com> writes: >> > The ath10k patch wasn't resent because the driver patches are now >> > integrated in the OpenWrt mac80211 package. The answer in >> > >> > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.embedded.openwrt.devel/22422 also >> > wasn't> >> > quite promising. >> >> What do you mean? What was wrong with my answer? > > Nothing is "wrong" but you said that there are two branches. One is "AP mode, > nothing else" and the other one is "main branch again has more > features, like P2P, ...". So I don't see a good reason why a multi-purpose > system like openwrt should accept my patch to change it to the "AP-only" > ath10k firmware. AP mode in 10.1 firmware is extensively tested and that's why I strongly recommend to use 10.1 firmware as the default in openwrt. I don't think it's wise to knowingle cripple ath10k AP mode in openwrt just because lack of P2P support. Like Matti also said, AP mode is most important in openwrt, we should have that properly supported first. But we should try ways to mitigate the problem of having two firmware branches. For example, should we have a module parameter in ath10k to choose which firmware to use? Or is there even a way to do that automatically based on what interfaces are used? I'm happy to hear any ideas how to improve this. -- Kalle Valo _______________________________________________ openwrt-devel mailing list openwrt-devel@lists.openwrt.org https://lists.openwrt.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openwrt-devel
