On Mon, 2014-01-20 at 13:02 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: > On 20 January 2014 11:55, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2014-01-17 at 09:32 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: > >> Introduce NL80211_RRF_STRICT_BW regulatory rule flag. > >> This mean we will check only banwidth defined in > >> regulatory database and not check contiguous rules. > > > > If you meant for this to alleviate my concerns about crda/db.txt > > compatibility, you didn't do it right. This has no value whatsoever > > since it still breaks things. > > > > So, maybe better introduce opposite logic here. By default always > calculate BW as STRICT_BW - be backwards compatible with current > crda/db.txt implementation/calculation. > And introduce WIDE(LOOSE)_BW flag for the rules we would like > calculate maximum bandwidth using contiguous rules? Yeah I suppose that'd work. I think it doesn't even need to be a rule flag, but rather a country flag? 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
