Hey,
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 02:26:42PM +0100, Zefir Kurtisi wrote:
> On 01/29/2013 01:21 PM, Simon Wunderlich wrote:
> > From: Victor Goldenshtein <victorg@xxxxxx>
> >
> > [...]
> > @@ -2080,7 +2087,7 @@ enum ieee80211_frame_release_type {
> > * @IEEE80211_RC_SMPS_CHANGED: The SMPS state of the station changed.
> > * @IEEE80211_RC_SUPP_RATES_CHANGED: The supported rate set of this peer
> > * changed (in IBSS mode) due to discovering more information about
> > - * the peer.
> > + * the peern.
> > */
> typo?
yup ... sorry about that.
> > [...]
> > + /* TODO: some channels (e.g. ETSI weather channels between 5.600 and
> > + * 5.6500 require longer waiting time, if we want to support them at
> > + * all.
> > + */
> > + timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(NL80211_DFS_MIN_CAC_TIME_MS);
> > + ieee80211_queue_delayed_work(&sdata->local->hw,
> > + &sdata->dfs_cac_timer_work, timeout);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> The required minimum detection probability for weather channels is purposely
> defined such that it can't be reached, so it is safe to assume they will never be
> supported. As for CAC and NOP timings, they are luckily same for ETSI and FCC
> right now, and if they differ in the future, we have the countrycode's DFS
> regulatory domain available to differentiate.
Ah ok, good that they are the same :)
I agree about weather channels, 99.9% detection rate just appears not feasible.
Will remove the comment then.
Cheers,
Simon
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
