Search Linux Wireless

RE: [RFC 2/2] cfg80211: check (VHT) bandwidth against regulatory

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



________________________________________
From: mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx [mcgrof@xxxxxxxxx] on behalf of Luis R. Rodriguez [mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:49 PM
To: Johannes Berg; Bitterli, Felix
Cc: linux-wireless@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] cfg80211: check (VHT) bandwidth against regulatory

On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Johannes Berg
<johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 14:38 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > -       /* TODO: missing regulatory check on 80/160 bandwidth */
>> > +       /*
>> > +        * TODO: What if there are only certain 80/160/80+80 MHz channels
>> > +        *       allowed by the driver, or only certain combinations?
>> > +        *       For 40 MHz the driver can set the NO_HT40 flags, but for
>> > +        *       80/160 MHz and in particular 80+80 MHz this isn't really
>> > +        *       feasible -- should we ask the driver here?
>> > +        */
>>
>> It'd be real odd if a card could only do certain settings but at least
>> from what I was told the spec did limit the required combinations to a
>> smaller set so technically I could see the firmware having the checks
>> to only allow those settings. I don't think it makes sense to add this
>> as a limitation that gets annotated by a flag on the driver though. I
>> suspect we can assume a driver that supports VHT80 will support those
>> combos defined on the spec and so will a card that can support VHT160
>> and the only restriction really should be regulatory.
>
> Ok so mostly I'm thinking 80+80 limitations. I could imagine, for
> example, that a card doesn't want to do 80+80 if they're adjacent (do
> 160 instead), but I have no idea what 80+80 cards are like...

Pfft, yeah I have no clue yet. Felix would you know if there are any
limitations hardware wise in theory at least of doing 80+80
configurations (apart form what the standard would allow).

  Luis

[Felix:] Firstly, overlapping 40M channels are not allowed, overlapping 80M channels are not allowed, same for 160M. So each individual 80 of the 80+80 has to follow previous rule. In case the two 80 are adjacent, it's called 160.

  Best regards, Felix (apologies for owa quoting improperly)
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Host AP]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Wireless Personal Area Network]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Linux Kernel]     [IDE]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Hiking]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]

  Powered by Linux