On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 11:33:10 -0700
"Feldman, Scott" <scott.feldman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Jeff suggested in an earlier post that there is an opportunity to
> totally rethink the wireless extensions now that we have wireless-2.6.
>
> Let's get rid of the iotcl and /proc interfaces as Jeff suggests:
>
> 1) iw_handler API goes away and is replaced by struct
> net_device::wireless_ops (ala ethtool_ops).
> 2) sysfs get/set mapping for wireless_ops.
> 3) iw_statistics just becomes one of the wireless_ops.
> 4) Remove /proc/net/wireless support from wireless.c. (Already
> have sysfs support for the same :)
> 5) No private handler support. If you need private support,
> pass it in some other way (custom sysfs of modparam). Or,
> better yet, make a case that others could benefit and move
> into wireless_ops as standard.
> 6) Convert drivers from iw_handler and iw_statistics to
> wireless_ops.
> 7) Rewrite iw* tools to use sysfs interface rather than ioctl.
> (scriptable tools?)
> 8) [Optional] Remove iotcl interface. May want to keep for
> backward compat with legacy tools? Easy to map between
> ioctl and wireless_ops in wireless.c.
> 9) [Open] What to do about wireless events? Any ideas?
>
> Proposed sysfs layout:
>
> class/
> `-- net
> |-- eth[x]
> |-- wireless
> |-- statistics
> | |-- beacon
> | |-- crypt
> | `-- ...
> `-- control
> |-- commit
> |-- name
> |-- network_id
> |-- freq
> `-- ...
That layout would mean that wireless needs to be a separate object
(allocation/structure/kobject). Not bad, just one more issue to deal with.
Go ahead and view existing sysfs wireless stuff as a prototype since no tools
are using it (that I know of) yet.
|