On Wed, 2014-01-15 at 17:05 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: > > We did discuss something like this previously (and see our todo list on > > the wiki), but this isn't just some arbitrary internal change, it > > completely changes the interpretation of the regulatory database. > > > > We need this because of such split DFS REG_RULE for ETSI: In general, I totally think what you're proposing makes sense, and I also think we should take it further like here: http://wireless.kernel.org/en/developers/todo-list/regulatory However I do think that should be considered carefully in terms of the userspace impact/change. > - (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 20), DFS > - (5490 - 5710 @ 80), (N/A, 27), DFS > + (5250 - 5330 @ 80), (N/A, 20), (60), DFS > + (5490 - 5590 @ 80), (N/A, 27), (60), DFS > + (5590 - 5650 @ 80), (N/A, 27), (600), DFS // here different > CAC time but still 80MHz should be available > + (5650 - 5710 @ 80), (N/A, 27), (60), DFS > > In the future could be also usefull for 160MHz: > (5170 - 5250 @ 160), (N/A, 20) > (5250 - 5330 @ 160), (N/A, 20), DFS Yes, the whole @xyz thing is a bit superfluous, I believe it should really be @unlimited (meaning only restriction is that it fits) for most countries. > We can implement CAC time as hardcoded (already send such patches some > time ago) one but seems this is close connected with regulatory > configuration and seems like good idea put this in regulatory db. I totally agree, this is a good idea. 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
