Nokia's WiMAX implementation

[juuso.oikarinen at nokia.com]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Dan Williams [mailto:dcbw at redhat.com] 
>Sent: 4. joulukuuta 2008 0:40
>> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> Some time ago, a colleague of mine, Luciano Coelho, opened a 
>> discussion with this same subject. I think it is time now for me to 
>> continue that discussion, because our aim, like that of 
>Intel's, is to 
>> achieve a unified WiMAX driver interface for Linux. For 
>reference, the 
>> original posting is archived in 
>> http://linuxwimax.org/pipermail/wimax/2008-June/000028.html.
>> 
>> As Luca explains in his e-mail, the Nokia architechture is different 
>> from the approach taken by Intel.
>> - The Nokia architechture places the device independent WiMAX 
>> interface at the kernel/user-space barrier, so that all user-space 
>> components are independent of the WiMAX device.
>> 
>> - The Intel architechture places the device independent WiMAX 
>> interface on top of a user-space library, so that in the 
>> kernel/user-space barrier, essentially, chipset specific 
>messages are 
>> exchanged.
>> 
>> In the original posting, Luciano stated that the Nokia 
>driver sources 
>> are not publicized yet. This has now changed. For reference, please 
>> see the Maemo.org repository at 
>> 
>http://repository.maemo.org/pool/maemo4.1/free/k/kernel-source-diablo/
>> 
>> The Nokia driver currently implements the WiMAX methods as private 
>> extensions to the WLAN wireless events interface. Obviously, for a 
>> long term solution fixed messages would need to be defined. 
>Still, the
>
>Yeah, that's not going to work upstream, which is where we 
>eventually want this to go...  I think a fusion of the Intel 
>and Nokia approaches is the best direction; taking the netlink 
>communication approach from the Intel drivers, and the 
>device-independence (and supplicant communication approach) 
>from the Nokia drivers.
>
>Basically, WE is dead dead dead, and should no longer be used 
>under any circumstances.  A specific WiMAX netlink 
>communications system should be used, like Intel has done.  
>But there are still concerns upstream with the 
>device-specificity of the kernel/userspace API as Intel has written it.
>
>I guess you guys just rewrote the Intel drivers, or wrote new 
>drivers from scratch for the 2400 hardware?
>
>Dan
>

The Nokia driver is not a rewrite of any Intel driver, it is has been
written from scratch by Nokia, and as far as I know well before the
Intel WiMAX Linux development had really speeded up.

Although I share your view on WE, and I think a netlink message based
interface would be elegant, I'm not sure how the community will view a
driver interface without IOCTL based control.

I agree with you. The best solution would be a fusion. A netlink message
based interface with the abstract WiMAX operations (with interface
abstraction at the level used in the Nokia driver) would be the way to
start defining a uniform WiMAX driver interface for Linux. 


-Juuso

>> methods defined in the interface have been proven to work on a real 
>> product, and could serve as good reference defining a device 
>> independent WiMAX driver interface for Linux.
>> 
>> It is my personal feeling that the Nokia approach is closer 
>to what is 
>> intended by the driver model in operating systems, such as Linux.