On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 11:09 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
> On 21 February 2014 10:55, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-02-21 at 10:47 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
> >> On 21 February 2014 09:52, Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2014-02-12 at 19:54 +0100, Janusz Dziedzic wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> +++ b/include/net/regulatory.h
> >> >> @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ struct ieee80211_reg_rule {
> >> >> struct ieee80211_freq_range freq_range;
> >> >> struct ieee80211_power_rule power_rule;
> >> >> u32 flags;
> >> >> + u32 dfs_cac_ms;
> >> >> };
> >> >
> >> > Does that really have to be per channel? That's a significant investment
> >> > into bss size since we have a lot of channel structs.
> >> >
> >> This seems easiest way to handle ETSI VHT80/40 case for channels with
> >> different CAC time (eg):
> >> VHT80:
> >> - 116 (60s)
> >> - 120 (600s)
> >> - 124 (600s)
> >> - 128 (600s)
> >>
> >> VHT40/HT40:
> >> - 132 (600s)
> >> - 136 (60s)
> >
> > Huh, but you don't distinguish between channel widths in this whole
> > patchset?
> >
> In patch cfg80211: DFS get CAC time from regulatory I check whole
> chandef and get max channel cac value.
Oh, right, I misunderstood your other email.
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
