On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Peer, Ilan <ilan.peer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > static bool cfg80211_go_permissive_chan(struct
>> cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
>> > struct ieee80211_channel
>> > *chan) @@ -621,8 +623,14 @@ static bool
>> cfg80211_go_permissive_chan(struct cfg80211_registered_device *rdev,
>> > ASSERT_RTNL();
>> >
>> > if (!config_enabled(CONFIG_CFG80211_REG_RELAX_NO_IR) ||
>> > - !(wiphy->regulatory_flags & REGULATORY_ENABLE_RELAX_NO_IR)
>> ||
>> > - !(chan->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_GO_CONCURRENT))
>> > + !(wiphy->regulatory_flags & REGULATORY_ENABLE_RELAX_NO_IR))
>> > + return false;
>> > +
>> > + if (regulatory_indoor_allowed() &&
>> > + (chan->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_INDOOR_ONLY))
>> > + return true;
>> > +
>> > + if (!(chan->flags & IEEE80211_CHAN_GO_CONCURRENT))
>> > return false;
>>
>> Shouldn't this check go before the indoor one?
>>
>
> I do not think so, as this relaxations is orthogonal to the GO concurrent one. It means that If a channel is enabled but only under indoor and indoor operation is hinted the relaxation removes the NO_IR restriction if such exists (without the relaxation indoor operation would be allowed but not for GO).
Ah yes, the first check remains as this then though:
if (!config_enabled(CONFIG_CFG80211_REG_RELAX_NO_IR) ||
!(wiphy->regulatory_flags & REGULATORY_ENABLE_RELAX_NO_IR))
return false;
That seems wrong for the general case.
Luis
--
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
