On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 10:31 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote: > 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? Yeah that seems reasonable. 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
