On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 9:06 AM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 17:53 +0100, Johannes Berg wrote:
>
>> +bool reg_check_bandwidth(struct wiphy *wiphy,
>> + u32 center_freq_khz, u32 bw_khz)
>> +{
>> + const struct ieee80211_reg_rule *reg_rule;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * This interpretation is a bit of a strange quirk in the regulatory
>> + * rules definitions that we have today: each 20 MHz channel must fit
>> + * entirely into a single regulatory range, but if this range forbids
>> + * using more than 20 MHz then it forbids even using a small part of
>> + * this for the wider channel.
>> + */
>> +
>> + reg_rule = freq_reg_info(wiphy, center_freq_khz);
>> + if (!IS_ERR(reg_rule))
>> + return reg_rule->freq_range.max_bandwidth_khz >= bw_khz;
>
> This needs rcu_read_lock() obviously... Fixed in my version in the wip
> branch.
Looks good, the get_wiphy_regdom() change above seemed like it'd
belong on a separate patch though.
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
