On Thu, 2012-12-13 at 14:11 -0800, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: > On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > The channel bandwidth handling isn't really quite right, > > it assumes that a 40 MHz channel is really two 20 MHz > > channels, which isn't strictly true. This is the way the > > regulatory database handling is defined right now though > > so remove the logic to handle other channel widths. > I didn't see the replacement work in place but I assume its coming > through RFCs or already posted so: I'm not planning to replace this (dead) code, at least not right now. All current users of the function pass 0, which assumes 20 MHz, so basically all I'm doing is remove this unused argument and code associated with it. Now, due to the way the regulatory database works, the argument was never actually useful unless somebody wanted to support 5/10 MHz channels and had a regulatory domain that only allowed those (and didn't allow 20 MHz!) For wider bandwidths, the way the regulatory db is currently defined (by the way it's always been handled) is that all the secondary channels must exist and allow the bandwidth, but that's a little different so I also don't see any way this argument would currently be useful. johannes -- 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
