On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 02:55:51PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > Hi Stanislaw, > > > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 04:48:19PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 09, 2018 at 04:26:42PM +0200, Lorenzo Bianconi wrote: > > > > > I would like to integrate the driver to kernel via mt76 driver, i.e. > > > > > add USB hooks and mt76x0 mac/phy code to mt76. This will open > > > > > possibility to develop support for mt76x2 USB devices as well as > > > > > mt76x0 > > > > > PCIe devices in mt76. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have already started supporting mt76x2 USB devices in mt76 since > > > > register map > > > > is pretty similar to PCIe devices: > > > > https://github.com/LorenzoBianconi/wireless-drivers-next/tree/mt76x2u > > > > I added some usb utility routines so I think we can integrate mt76x0 in > > > > mt76 as > > > > well > > > > > > Great, I'll start to integrate mt76x0 on top of your tree. > > > > So I started to do integration here: > > https://github.com/sgruszka/wireless-drivers-next/commits/mt76x0-draft > > > > However since driver is self containging, I think better would be just > > submit the driver into mt76/mt76x0/ dir upstream and do code merging work as > > follow-up patches posted on the mailing list. Patches then could be reviewed > > on regular basic. This will provide support for new mt76x0 devices in kernel > > quicker. Conflicts with mt76x2u and not yet upstreamed mt7603 could be > > resolved > > on the fly. > > I did a quick review of the code and it seems (please correct me if I > am wrong) there is > a lot of duplicated code with mt76/mt76x2u and mt7601u drivers (i.e: > mcu/eeprom/mac code
Yes, however there are some subtle differences too. > is quite the same of the ones used in mt76x2u). Moreover mt76/mt76x2u has been > refactored in order to expose usb and mt76x2_common modules where you > can use better > 802.11 aggregation (using mac80211 per-sta queuing) and A-MSDU support (using > tx/rx usb scatter-gather). Moreover mt76x2u has been tested/used by > various users till now. > So since mt76x0 will be deeply modified I guess it would be better to > start integrating the driver with > mt76/mt76x2u before been merged upstream otherwise will end-up with a > lot of integration commits. Not sure why many integration commits in upstream is a problem. I think having patches posted on mailing list is better than doing them in my "private" tree without any review. > What do you think? I was thinking about posting mt76x0 driver in a subdir (there is sill some cleanup work need to be done there), wait for upstream mt76x2u integration, then post patches that remove duplication between mt76x2 and mt76x0 and add support for mt76x0e on the way. Thanks Stanislaw
