On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:51:12PM +0200, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > Don't expect specs or opensource drivers for any of these pieces
> > of hardware until these vendors figure out a way to hide the frequency
> > programming interface.
> What did Intersil do? How did the linux-wlan-ng project handle this?
The linux-wlan-ng project only handles the prism2/2.5/3 chipsets, which
are *extremely* well documented (and 2.4G-only), so there really isn't
anything to "handle"; from the driver perspective you just say "give
me channel X" and that's it. If the eeprom-based tables say you can
use the channel, it lets you; otherwise it's No Soup For You.
Intersil is a poor example; they've generally been quite forthcoming
with documentation. Granted, the docs for the PrismGT/etc stuff are
pretty bad, but you can get them without selling your soul.
(it's also worth mentioning that Intersil partially funded
RF tables and regulation might be an excuse chipset companies use to
hide their specs, but the real reasons tend to be a bit more along the
"We want to protect our valuable IP"
...which translates to:
"We want to protect our violations of other people's valuable IP"
It's CYA, plain and simple. They're so terrified of litigation that
they feel that *any* semi-public information (even if only source code)
is a threat.
Many of them genuinely want to provide Linux support, in the form of
binary drivers much like Windows has. Then they balk when realizing
what a support hell (and $$$) it will be to pull it off without
providing source code, thanks to the monolothic nature of the Linux
Or at least that's been my experience in the past year.
-- Solomon Peachy pizza@f*cktheusers.org ICQ #1318444 Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur Melbourne, FL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 30 2003 - 22:00:32 EST