> Ron I haven't been able to review your 802.11n patches yet due to time > but I do remember seeing some "channel" variable in a struct somewhere > at a quick glance on your 802.11n patch series. It was determined a > little while ago that we'd move from static channels to frequency > instead. One reason for this is to stick to 'one' thing later for > regulatory purposes. Another reason that came up later is that > frequency be relied upon even on 5GHz reliably contrary to channel > number -- in 5GHz the channel numbers can be mapped arbitrarily > depending on the regulatory agency your country falls under. Would it > be too much if you used frequency instead of channel or does the the > 802.11n draft specs say you have to use channel somewhere? > > Sorry I couldn't pin point the specific patch yet. it will be helpful to know the specific place where you spotted it, but i will assume you are relating to the channel width and offset?. in that case i took the 802.11n spec name from 2 reasons: 1 - to be clearer to code readers as to right place in the spec 2 - the spec strongly relates to 20/40 Mhz capabilities of the channel, not to the channel itself, (e.g. extention channel), so i saw no reason to break it and to go to frequencies. ron > > 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
