add the modules Makefile

The real problem isn't the ABI key size, it's that the current net80211 API routine expects the ioctl size is fixed. If that size check wasn't there and we relied on the key request key size and verified it fit inside the ioctl buffer size then we'd be fine.

Would nv lists be better?

In D44920#1026551, @emaste wrote:

Can we decouple userland use in ifconfig? i.e., have ifconfig support 384 bits now

I see you made comments of "ieee80211_set_software_ciphers() is not needed" in if_rtwn.c. Do you mind to add it in the rest of the drivers files? Or is there any better/central place to put such comment or document it?

remove the VAP keymgmt flags for now; will reintroduce it and change the
ioctl API to use that instead when it's necessary.

remove NONE, from bz@

OK, I rebuilt world and found where this breaks userland.

In D44827#1027553, @bz wrote:

This still has changes not marked "done".
Is there a change in the stack which does change the drivers to use this?

In D44820#1027551, @bz wrote:

Can you please update the commit message? Apart from that it seems fine-ish with what cc@ said.

Is there any implementation for these new functions, i.e., something which updates the drivers or is this just dead wood swimming down the river?

Would be great if the commit message would mention IEEE80211_CRYPTO_MODULE() somehow so one can find this in the future more easily.

In theory I am fine with this once these modules actually exist. I would also fantastic if the annoying printf instead of loading them could be fixed. reverse order.

Most of the comments were marked "done" and changed some since the original comments but the "RSN AKM suite element" table still has a mix of #define suffixes and comments for the "256" cases? Is this on purpose for some reason beyond this file? At least the TDLS case I had originally asked for _256? I just wonder why not? Can you explain?

This still has changes not marked "done".
Is there a change in the stack which does change the drivers to use this?

You didn't answer my previous question?

Can you please update the commit message? Apart from that it seems fine-ish with what cc@ said.

Individual accept.

address comments from cc@