On 20 February 2014 09:03, Janusz Dziedzic <janusz.dziedzic@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20 February 2014 08:59, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 08:57 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: >> >>> >> Yes, seems we should send this even this is 0. >>> >> Next for old kernel, all channels where BW=0 will be HT20 only. >>> > >>> > Is that really a good idea? >>> > >>> > Maybe crda should just get the logic to determine maximum bandwidth, >>> > like you did in the kernel, and then we can even revert the kernel code >>> > again? >>> > >>> Yes, this is possible to calculate this in crda (or even set this manually). >> >> Ok. Would that help older kernels? How would we handle genregdb.awk? >> > In case of older kernels we will fail (end_freq - start_freq < bw) with -EINVAL. > So, bw=0 (cfg calculation) seems like best idea - will work with new > and old kernels. > Seems cfg80211 max bandwidth calculation is best option here. We should set BW as is in old regulatory (skip this BW=0 patches) - will work fine with old kernels. And in new regulatory add RULE flag NL80211_RRF_AUTO_BW, which will be checked in newer kernels and if AUTO_BW flag we will skip (end_freq - start_freq < bw) check and calculate maximum available bandwidth. What you think? BR Janusz - -- 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
