On 10/18/07, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2007-10-17 at 10:15 -0400, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > > The regulatory work can just iterate over the currently established > > channels for each wiphy. Who defines those or how is not important to > > the regulatory work. I'm not sure why the range approach would not > > work here. A card usually works on a range of frequencies anyway. > > Right. But the regulatory code may need to have power restrictions > different on different channels and generally wants to be able to > restrict things for each channel, Right but this is independent of how the driver sets his things up. > so it'd be good to have the list > defined right away by the driver. The real problem here, as you pointed out to me before, is each driver needs its own hw values for channels so I suppose it make sense to let the driver set this. > It seems that if we don't put this > into the driver but rather have a frequency range there, we need to > allocate an array of channels later for this work and that's not needed > if we start out with an array of channels. Right, we can provide a helper for driver to allocate/create the channel array structure but as I noted they need to set hw values anyway... so blah. Luis - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
